Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

Orders of the Day — Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

A Lords amendment to a Commons amendment and a Reason for disagreeing to a Commons amendment, considered.

Clause 7

DISPENSATION BY COURT WITH SPOUSE'S CONSENT TO DEALING

The Lords have agreed to the Amendment made by the Commons in page 10, line 19, leave out from 'where' to end ofline 26 and insert

'it appears to the court—

that the non-entitled spouse has led the entitled spouse to believe that he or she would consent to the dealing and that the non-entitled spouse would not be prejudiced by any change in the circumstance of the case since such apparent consent was given; or
that the entitled spouse has, having taken all reasonable steps to do so, been unable to obtain an answer to a request for consent.'.

with the following Amendment:

In line 5, leave out 'circumstance' and insert 'circumstances'.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
A mistake in the drafting of Commons amendment No. 68 was fortunately spotted before it was considered by another place. It will be readily apparent that the addition of "s" to the word "circumstance" improves the sense of the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

OCCUPANCY RIGHTS OF COHABITING COUPLES

The Lords have disagreed with the Commons in their Amendment to page 19, line 26, at end insert—
in section 6, subsections (1) to (3); in section 7, subsections (1) to (4), but only where both partners of a cohabiting couple are entitled, or permitted by a third party, to occupy the house where they are cohabiting; sections (Interests of heritable creditor) and 8;".

for the following Reason—

Because the Amendment would unnecessarily complicate and unjustifiably increase the cost of conveyancing practice in Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth not insist on this Amendment to which the Lords have disagreed.
Although this was a Government amendment on Report, I would recommend that the view of the other place should be accepted. Indeed, it was my colleague the Minister of State who moved that the amendment should be disagreed in the other place. Our second thoughts on the matter are not prompted by any change of heart on the basic policy intention behind the amendment, but rather


because it has become evident that the amendment would cause unforeseen and unintended consequences which put its value in a quite different light.
The aim of the amendment—essentially in response to concern expressed in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—was to give a more meaningful security to a non-entitled cohabiting partner for the duration of a court order giving that partner a right of occupancy in the cohabiting couple's house. Because the consent of a non-entitled spouse is not relevant to a cohabiting—rather than married—situation, without such an amendment there is nothing in the Bill to prevent a clandestine sale of the house by the entitled partner—notwithstanding the existence of a court order expressly intended to give security of occupancy to the other partner. Once the house is sold, no right of occupancy would exist.
The case for preventing such a sale is a strong one. Despite the practical reservations about meeting this point within the framework of the Bill expressed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), it was therefore decided that amendment of the Bill was desirable. Unfortunately, at that stage in the Bill's progress time was not on our side and there was not the time for the usual careful consideration of the point which we would have liked.
In the event it became clear shortly after Report that amendment No. 43 moved at that stage had significant consequences for conveyancing which outweighed the added protection it provided for non-entitled cohabiting partners. The principal difficulty is that the amendment would lead to a requirement in relation to all house sales that the seller would need to provide an affidavit that he—or she—had no cohabiting partner. In other words, the gentleman in question would have to swear an oath that he had no mistress.
That would be required, as well as the spouse's consent or renunciation, or an affidavit of no non-entitled spouse—one of which will be needed normally as a result of the Bill. Many sellers would be embarrassed or offended by such an additional requirement; all sellers would be faced with a further expense in disposing of their house. Obviously the Government would wish to spare the blushes and protect the purses of people selling their houses; the amendment is essentially unacceptable becuse of the repercussions it would have in many house purchase transactions. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber would wish to avoid such unintended consequences.
A further, more technical difficulty caused by the amendment is that to be effective against a clandestine sale by the entitled partner, the court order granting the right of occupancy would have to be registered in the Land Register, because it is not defined elsewhere in the Bill as an overriding interest, as is a spouse's occupancy right in the matrimonial home. That would cause more expense to the partner needing her occupancy protected.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pentlands explained in a letter to the hon. Member for Garscadden, it is for these reasons that the Government would prefer the amendment to fall. The number of occasions when such clandestine sales will occur is unlikely to be substantial. Moreover, it will still be open to a non-entitled partner who suspects that a sale is afoot to go back to the court to seek a separate order under clause 3(1)(e) to protect her occupancy rights. Because conveyancing law is something

of a minefield, I am afraid that it has not been possible to devise another way of meeting the amendment's objectives without some unfortunate consequences. Only a radical reshaping of the Bill could achieve that and obviously at this late stage such a step is not feasible.
I trust that hon. Members—and especially the hon. Member for Garscadden—will appreciate why the Government, though supporting the aims of the amendment, must accept the view of the other place that it should not form part of the Bill.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I listened with pleasure to the delicate phrasing with which the Under-Secretary sought to cover his retreat. For all that, it is a retreat in some disorder. I am also glad to note that he has told the House that the Government are trying to spare people's blushes. They spare little else in their general activities, so I suppose that we should be grateful for that.
This amendment is not something about which we would wish to disagree with another place. Looking through the reports of the debate in another place, I notice that the Earl of Mansfield said that he did not expect a constitutional clash between the two Houses. In that he is totally safe.
I refer those with energy and much time on their hands to column 167 of the Official Report of the proceedings in Committee. When this matter first arose in a speech that I made, I drew attention to a problem that I understand the Secretary of State accepts as real, although limited. Neither I nor any of my hon. Friends was trying to insist on the necessity of incorporating clauses 6 and 7 into clause 16 of the Bill as it then was. I suggested to the Under-Secretary that a simple statutory statement that an order protecting the occupancy of a cohabitee under clause 16 should take precedence over any sale of the house might be a better way of achieving the desired end than that which was ultimately imported into the Bill by the Government on Report.
Therefore, I was not standing on any absolute formula. I was suggesting that there was a problem and that the Government had a duty to find a solution. I was happy when they came back on Report and said that the original amendment was acceptable and that they would take it into the Bill. The fact that they have recanted for technical reasons in another place is a matter for regret, although I understand the difficulties.
I shall ask one or two technical questions with which the Minister will be able to deal shortly. First, there are the technical difficulties which have arisen and which were rehearsed by the Earl of Mansfield in column 401 of the report in another place. This argument was repeated by the Under-Secretary. I understand that if the amendment stood, the seller would have to provide an affidavit that he was not cohabiting, and that, if he was married, this would be in addition to the consent in terms of clause 6(3)(e), necessary from any spouse who might be extant.
I accept that that might give cause for some embarrassment. I should have thought that one would not have to swear an affidavit to the effect that one was not cohabiting, but merely that no order had been sought and obtained by a cohabitee under the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act. I should have thought that the affidavit would be a formality and would have the


same effect for the buyer who was purchasing in good faith as an affidavit under clause 6(3)(e) which deals with a spouse as distinct from a cohabitee.
Another complaint is that apparently it would be necessary to register an order under clause 16 or such an order would not take precedence over any dealing affecting the house in question. It was for exactly that reason that I wanted such a statement of precedence in the Bill.
Although I do not disagree basically with their Lordships, I notice that the reason they give for refusing the amendment is that it would unnecessarily complicate and unjustifiably increase the cost of conveyancing practice. I do not think that the Government have shown any great inclination to reduce the cost of conveyancing practice or to deal with conveyancing law reform with any great energy.
It is clear that the problem remains. If the amendment falls, we are left with the difficulty with which it was meant to deal. If there is a sale of a property while there is an order under clause 16 in favour of a cohabitee, what will be the effect of that order on the sale?
Is the Minister's understanding that if, for example, an extension is sought for six months by the cohabitee, it would be relevant to plead the buyer's interest against the interest of the non-entitled cohabitee who might want that extension? Would the buyer in those circumstances have a right to enter an objection to such an extension? Would the non-entitled cohabitee be able to ask for the extension at all? The difficulty is that by that time the sale would have been completed and the entitled cohabitee would no longer be the owner of the property. I should have thought, therefore, that the right to apply to the courts for a six months' extension would fly off and be defeated by the fact that the sale had taken place.
The effect would appear to be that the right to extend and to continue in the property, in pressing social circumstances—for example, a cohabitee of long standing with young children—might inevitably be defeated by a sale during the period in which the order was running.
In Committee, at column 170, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) specifically suggested—in relation to a point raised by the Minister this afternoon—that one answer would be an interdict under clause 3(1)(e). Clause 3(1)(e) refers to a situation in which an order can be asked for protecting the occupancy in relation to the other spouse. The other spouse becomes the other cohabitee in the context of the almost private argument that the Minister and I are having. Will it still be open to a party to get an interdict under clause 3(1)(e) if the sale has been completed? I take the point that the Minister carefully used the words "if a sale is anticipated", and said that it might then be possible to get an interdict under clause 3(1)(e). But we are presupposing a situation in which relationships have broken down and there may be no reason for the cohabitee to anticipate the sale. The sale may be completed without her knowledge. She will then look at Hansard and see the Under-Secretary of State's advice to go for an interdict under clause 3(1)(e), and discover that that right does not exist, I suspect, because it is a right as against the entitled spouse or cohabitee, and the cohabitee is no longer entitled because the sale has been completed and he no longer owns the property. 

These are points not only of detail, but of some substance. If I may recapitulate my argument, my suspicion is that the sale of the property during the currency of an occupancy order under clause 16 will seriously prejudice the position of a cohabitee, because it will destroy the right of renewal, and it will not take precedence over the sale, so that presumably eviction could take place before the occupancy order expires.
If I am right in these suppositions, it would seem to me that the Government have a duty—whether they can do it at this stage or not—to consider the matter clearly and to say whether there is some way of getting round the difficulty. These are dry and somewhat technical Committee points, but clause 16 is a difficult matter of balance when we are considering the right of cohabitees in the context of legislation which is designed basically to protect the right of a spouse.
In the deliberations on our amendments in the other place, Lord Selkirk at column 402 of the Official Report, said that we were in danger of putting cohabitees in very nearly the same position as a married couple. We are not trying to do that. We were giving them no rights to a capital claim or to any of the legal bulwarks which protect married people. We are attempting to give them occupancy rights under clause 16 in circumstances where it is just and socially equitable to do so and is seen to be so by the courts.
My fear is that the failure to produce a proper and adequate way of getting round the particular conveyancing difficulty to which the Minister referred will result in clause 16 becoming an extremely inadequate and ineffective protection, and that this part of the measure will be seriously damaged. That would be a pity. I hope that the Minister, even if he cannot do anything about the matter at this stage, will consider whether there is a way at some future date in which the matter can be remedied.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I suppose that it depends on the circles in which one moves, but I was surprised when the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suggested that it would be something of a formality for a seller of a home to provide an affidavit to say that he was not keeping a mistress. I should have thought that it would be something of an embarrassment to most people. It was for that reason that I said in my opening remarks that it might be wise to spare the blushes.
It is no part of our task to increase the cost of the sale of houses in Scotland, and I would not suggest for a moment that, because the hon. Gentleman is a member of the legal profession and a practising solicitor, he would see any advantage in increasing the costs of conveyancing or anything else in Scotland.
In agreeing with the Lords that the amendment should not remain in the Bill, we have given very careful consideration to how the position of the cohabiting partner can best be protected. I do not think that I can agree with the hon. Gentleman when he says that we are left with the problem. I do not think that we are left with precisely the problem that existed before the Bill came before this House. Admittedly, it gives complete protection to a married partner, but only interim protection, through the court, to a cohabiting partner.
Under clause 3(7), a cohabiting partner is entitled to claim compensation, and that in itself must be some improvement in the situation with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. Most provisions in the Bill apply


to a cohabiting partner, but in this case, as I explained in my opening remarks, it was just not practical to bring the matter into the Bill itself.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other points of a more technical nature which we have considered most carefully but, rather than apply my accountancy knowledge to the hon. Gentleman's legal knowledge, it might be more advisable that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who took the Bill in Committee, should write to the hon. Gentleman on these detailed and more technical points as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Education (Scotland) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

DUTY OF EDUCATION AUTHORITY TO COMPLY WITH PARENTS' REQUESTS AS TO SCHOOLS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 7, line 25, after "section" insert "—(a)".

(Mr. Alexander Fletcher): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Mr. Fletcher: The amendments concern the case where a parent makes an appeal to the sheriff, under new section 28F of clause 1, against the refusal of his placing a request. In such a case considerable concern has been expressed that where sheriff court proceedings are held in public there may be harmful effects for the child concerned and his parents. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the welfare of the children concerned is the most important consideration in this matter. The amendments accordingly provide that any hearing that the sheriff might decide to conduct in consideration of an appeal on a placing request shall be heard in private.

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: We are pleased to support the amendment, as the matter was first raised by Lord Ross of Marnock on Report. We are certainly anxious that children should not be dragged through the courts and that no additional anxiety should be caused by what I think we all consider to be a most unsatisfactory outcome to any parental appeal in respect of zoning arrangements and the like. If the courts are to be involved, it is desirable that that involvement should be, as it were, in camera. We are therefore very pleased that the Minister has now seen fit to accede to the request of our noble Friends in another place.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 4, in page 9, line 25, after first "the" insert "appeal".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is clearly a drafting amendment to put beyond doubt that the reference to "the committee" in new section 28H(5)(a) is to an appeal committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

PROVISIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION I

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 11, line 40, at end insert
or of a local education authority in England and Wales".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 6

Mr. Fletcher: The amendments are designed for the removal of doubt. Clause 2 determines that an authority which accedes to a placing request is not duty bound to provide transport or board and lodging for children from outside its area. The disapplication of such duties did not, in terms, apply to children from England and Wales attending schools in Scotland. The amendments make it clear that children from over the border are to be treated on the same footing as their Scottish counterparts, and that education authorities are under no duty to provide transport or other services for children from England and Wales.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Clause 4

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS WITH CERTAIN SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

Lords amendment: No. 7, in page 14, line 13 leave out "in their area" and insert
belonging to their area (in accordance with section 23(3) of this Act)".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 8, 13, 15, and 16.

Mr. Fletcher: These amendments, which are of a technical nature, were moved in another place by my noble Friend the Minister of State to rectify a deficiency in wording.
The changes now written into the Bill take account of the fact that a fair number of handicapped pupils are placed in schools, especially residential schools, outside their own areas. The amendments make it clear that the powers and duties of an education authority relating to the assessment and recording of children and young persons and to the review of their special educational needs extend to pupils belonging to the area of the authority. In other words, recorded pupils, wherever they are placed for the purposes of their education, remain the responsibility of the home authority. The phrase "in the area" was open to the unintended interpretation that responsibility in all cases was determined by the pupil's actual location. We believe that the amendments clarify the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 8 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 14, line 22, after "Record" insert "of Needs

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 10.

Mr. Fletcher: These amendments were moved in another place by the Minister of State in response to Opposition amendments which had broadly the same intention but which could not be accepted for technical and drafting reasons.
The amendments seek to avoid the unfortunate connotations attached by some to the term "Record". We had a useful debate in Standing Committee as to the choice of terminology for the record of a child with special educational needs. I hope that those who took part in that

debate will find the new extended title, "Record of Needs", acceptable. They will be interested to know that this was suggested in another place by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. We are extremely happy to agree with his choice of terminology.

Mr. O'Neill: We appreciate this move, as this was one of the most vexatious points that we encountered, not in the sense of party difference but inasmuch as it was felt by all members of the Committee that the term "Record" had unhappy connotations and that for those who are severely disadvantaged any attempt that could be made to alleviate the problem would be of assistance. The phrase "Record of Needs" is probably the happiest compromise. I should point out that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) was of some assistance on this point. I am sorry, it was the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve). As I recall, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East was not of any great assistance. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is not at present with us, and is unfortunately no longer on the Front Bench. Nor is his replacement present. If the hon. Gentleman had any part in devising the amendment when he was the Minister in charge of this, we put our thanks to him on record.
We are grateful that the word "Record" will no longer appear in such a bald fashion and that a perhaps slightly less offensive expression has been found to cover the special circumstances of those with special educational needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 10 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 15, line 8, after "fails" insert "without reasonable excuse".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This Government amendment was tabled to improve the drafting of new section 61 by making explicit our intention that arrangements to require parents to bring forward their children for assessment should come into play only as a last resort.
I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that our primary interest in this area should be to encourage the common purpose of education authorities and parents. The sanctions will remain on the statute book, but I would expect them to be invoked, as at present, only in the extreme case of a child's claimant needs and a parent's intransigence.

Mr. O'Neill: Although we would not wish to oppose the amendment, we should like to put it on record that all strenuous efforts should be made by the local education authority to ensure that an official makes contact with the parents within the reasonable period and that a personal approach would be attempted before having recourse to the law. My noble Friend Lord Ross of Marnock made this point elsewhere. It would be useful if the Minister would confirm that the Government feel that there is a responsibility upon the local authority to ensure that personal contact is made with the parents in question and that every possible attempt is made to persuade the family concerned by non-legal methods, to ensure that they do not have to go to court, which I am sure would be a very painful experience.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I appreciate the sensitivity on this point, and I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. We reconsidered this matter when the Bill was in the other place. Obviously, this is an area in which every effort should be made to persuade parents of the need to make use of the provision. When a child requires special educational needs, the last thing one wants is recourse to the courts to take action. But, bearing in mind the sensitivity of the matter, we still felt that there could be an occasional case where for reasons of one kind or another the parents might simply refuse to recognise that their child had some special educational requirement.
We have left this very much as a last resort so that the local authority, having tried every other kind of persuasion, knows that it has the eventual power to ensure that the needs of the child are given first priority in such cases.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 15, line 32, leave out "14" and insert "21".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Opposition amendments were tabled in Committee and on Report in another place seeking to increase to 29 days and 28 days respectively the minimum time to be given to parents to submit written views on their children's special educational needs during the assessment process. This Government amendment, which substitutes a minimum 21-day period for the 14 days originally stipulated in new section 61, was accepted as a compromise reflecting the need to avoid unduly prolonging the assessment process while ensuring for parents adequate time to contribute to it.
I remind the House that in submitting written views the parent has the help of the named person. It is therefore felt that an increase from 14 days to 21 days is in all respects reasonable and in the interests of all concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 14, in page 17, leave out lines 37 to 39 and insert—
(3) An education authority shall ensure that the provision made by them under this Act for a recorded child or a recorded".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This Government amendment was tabled in another place to improve the drafting of this subsection by clarifying the responsibility of an education authority towards a recorded child or young person. That responsibility is not to be restricted to those whom the education authority has itself recorded or for whom it provides education in its own schools. The revised wording places beyond doubt the right of the recorded child or young person to provision for his special educational needs. Where, for instance, he moves from one education authority area to another, the responsibility to provide for him will transfer to the authority of the area to which he now belongs. But, on the other hand, where he is placed outside his home area in a grant-aided or independent school, his home authority which made the placing is still clearly responsible for him.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 27, line 13, leave out "may" and insert "shall".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may also discuss Lords amendment No. 19.

Mr. Fletcher: The first amendment is an Opposition amendment that was accepted by the Government. The second is the necessary consequential amendment tabled by my noble Friend the Minister of State in another place which incorporates a technical improvement in drafting.
The primary effect of the change is to place an absolute requirement on the Secretary of State to make regulations prescribing the form and content of the record of needs and matters relating to its handling and preservation. In practice, of course, as evinced in the recent consultative paper, my right hon. Friend's commitment to making the regulations has never been in doubt. As the provisions in the Bill concerning the record would clearly be unworkable in the absence of such regulations, however, it is appropriate to make the Secretary of State's duty in the matter explicit.
Apart from this, the Government amendment secures that the regulation-making power is now expressed in terms which ensure that all necessary information can be included in the record of needs. The original wording was found to be restrictive, and the additional flexibility provided by the amendment is essential.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 18, in page 27, line 34, after "may" insert—
—

under paragraph (c) of this subsection, prescribe different procedures in different circumstances;
under paragraph (d) of this subsection, prescribe different periods in different circumstances; and
(iii)".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This Government amendment is technical. It is designed to improve the drafting of new section 65D by clarifying the Secretary of State's power to make different provision in regulations to meet differing circumstances arising in connection with the handling and preservation of the record of needs.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 19 agreed to.

Clause 5

ASSISTED PLACES AT GRANT-AIDED AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Lords amendment:No. 20, in page 28, line 24, leave out "to benefit from" and insert "to attend and receive"

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was moved by the Opposition in another place and the Government were happy to accept it. It does not, of course, alter the substance of the scheme but it helps to make two important points which we have taken great trouble to make during the Bill's passage and which Labour Members have stubbornly declined to accept. 


The scheme's detractors have sought to portray it as elitist and only for the academically bright. We have consistently refuted that claim in the House and in another place. That cannot be disputed or distorted, and any reference to our proceedings in Committee will assure the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan).
The object of the scheme is primarily to widen parental choice of schools for families with lower incomes.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is about to develop his argument, but this seems an appropriate moment to ask a straight question, as it will avoid my making a separate speech. The Minister has just said that the object is to widen parental choice. That seems to be in conflict with the object as set out by the Minister in England, which is to make provision for the brighter child. How can the Government justify spending money in the independent sector simply to widen the number of schools to which a child can go when the public sector is already starved of funds?

Mr. Fletcher: I refute the claim that the public sector is starved of funds. I certainly have no evidence that educational provision in the public sector in the Highland region, for example, is starved of funds. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence to support his statement, I hope that he will waste no time in making sure that it gets into my hands.
There has always been a long tradition in Scotland of giving a small amount of Government financial support to the independent sector in a way which allows children from less well-off families to attend certain schools. By using the same sums of money, we have extended the scheme to bring in other schools.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that not in every case are the schools looking for the academically bright children. For example, there are many denominational reasons why a parent whose area has no denominational schools may wish to take advantage of a scheme of this kind. The alterations that we have made to the old grant-aided system now enable parents in Scotland, for whatever reason they think best, to apply to a school for admission of their children.
The schools continue with their existing practices, be they denominational, academic or otherwise. During the past five or 10 years, many schools which previously insisted only on academic ability have broadened the selective process which they use to admit children.
In this part of the Bill we are simply trying to ensure that a low income family is not debarred from having a wider choice. If a family needs it, it will be able to receive direct financial assistance from the taxpayer rather than the system under the old grant aid scheme in Scotland, whereby funds were made available to the schools to use as they wished, either to reduce the general level of fees regardless of family income for some other educational purpose.

Mr. O'Neill: We were surprised to learn of the Government's willingness to accept this Opposition amendment in the other place. First, I should be interested to know whether the Minister proposes to amend the regulations that govern the working of the scheme. Regulation 5 of part II states:
The provisions to be met in so far as relevant in the case of a person to whom these regulations shall apply shall be as follows:

(d)that he shall, if admitted to an assisted place be, in the opinion of the school, capable of benefiting from the education provided at that school.
I trust, therefore, that the Minister will seek to change the regulations to ensure that the word "benefiting" disappears from them. In the other place, the Opposition wanted to make it clear that there is no assumption that any individual pupil necessarily benefits from being in school. We take the view that most children would not benefit from attending schools that will operate under the assisted places scheme. It was for that reason more than any other that we wanted the word "benefiting" removed.
I note that the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) has left the Chamber. Had he been here I should have drawn to his attention the Conservative Party's manifesto at the last election, which made it clear that provision would be made to enable bright children from poorer backgrounds—I think that was the expression—to benefit from the private sector of education. The acceptance of this amendment may be a departure from the manifesto.
However, the Minister has started to clarify the matter, because when we pursued him on it on Second Reading and asked him on what basis the youngsters who would enter the schools under this scheme would be selected he was at a loss to make it clear what method would be used. I am not very much clearer even now about how many female Highland Catholics, for example, will benefit from the assisted places scheme.
Perhaps the Minister could clarify the position on denominational schools. How many places will be available? How many places will be available in the peripheral areas of Scotland where most of these schools will be located? Have there been any requests from local authorities to make places available at denominational schools under the assisted places scheme? His argument, which I find novel, was never advanced in Committee and I should like some further information.
I appreciate what the Government are trying to do in changing from direct grant schools to the new assisted places scheme. Rather than one group, they seek to subsidise another. Instead of all students at direct grant schools being subsidised, a group of students will now be subsidised under the assisted places scheme, but the assumption is that they will no longer necessarily benefit from the subsidy.
4.45 pm
We are not unhappy about the amendment being accepted, but perhaps we are at variance with the Minister on some of the reasons that he put forward. The fact still remains that if a school has to make a choice between one young person and another, at the end of the day, if there is a tremendous demand for the scheme, the simplest and easiest way to select a child will be on the basis of academic ability. As yet, we do not know how many young people will be successful in applying for a place under the scheme.
We have been told that a certain proportion of young people will come from less well-off homes, but as yet there has been no undertaking by the Government to provide statistics of the profile of the take-up that would enable us to see the income distribution of those families. As far as we can ascertain, it can be about £10,000 a year for a family with one child. 


What reason can the Minister give for retaining the word "benefiting" in the regulations? If he does not change them, the acceptance of this amendment will be a hollow act by the Government.

Mr. Fletcher: I am happy to advise the hon. Gentleman that we shall change the regulations. Unlike the Labour Party, we are happy to listen to all views and to change our opinion from time to time in the light of discussions. The hostility of the Labour Party to the assisted places scheme shows a completely closed mind. I was particularly interested in the hon. Gentleman's comment—I think that he also made it in Committee—that in his view, and presumably in his party's view, children will not benefit from independent schools that are part of the assisted places scheme.
With respect, it is not for the hon. Gentleman or any other member of his party to decide whether children will benefit, despite the recent Opposition pamphlet in which I believe the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) was involved, which suggests that politicians know best. The whole point of choice and the whole message of the Bill—not just the assisted places scheme, but the sections on parental choice—is that the Government believe that it is for parents to choose and to decide what education—whether in the public or private sector—is right for their children. I would put my trust in the decisions of parents on this matter any day before I would put my trust in the decisions of Opposition Members.
Our scheme gives a much wider geographical spread of denominational schools. In particular, it includes denominational schools in rural areas that were not previously able to take advantage of the scheme, and I am sure that that will meet the requirements of many families who were previously debarred from the scheme. I freely admit that the old grant-aided schools were concentrated not only in the central belt of Scotland, but especially in Edinburgh—my area. I wish to use every means at our disposal to ensure that these benefits are spread more evenly throughout Scotland. That is why we have introduced more schools into the scheme than those covered by the old system.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Conservative Party manifesto commitment. We are ignoring the blindness of the Opposition and their arguments and improving the way in which we implement our manifesto where we believe that that will bring greater benefit.

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart): What I actually said concerned politicians having to take decisions on education. The Minister's remarks were surprising, especially on this part of the Bill. It is one part of the Bill on which politicians have clearly taken decisions against the advice of practically every educational organisation in Scotland, with the exception of the independent and fee-paying schools. Every public sector education authority—95 per cent. of the total—has condemned the scheme. Yet the politicians have gone ahead.
In reply to the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) the Minister said that parents might wish to make a choice for denominational reasons. He talked of the peripheral areas. One assumes that he meant Roman Catholic schools. He made a clear point in support of his case. How many Roman Catholic independent boarding

schools are there in Scotland? How many students can they take? How many are they prepared to take on the assisted places scheme? I am aware of only one such school, which is comparatively small. The Minister's argument is bogus.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Mr. Alexander Fletcher rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind the Minister that these are Lords amendments and that he needs the leave of the House to speak for a third time.

Mr. Fletcher: With the leave of the House. I tell the hon. Member for Cathcart that I do not have at my fingertips the number of Roman Catholic boarding schools in Scotland.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister should have.

Mr. Fletcher: However, just under 10 per cent. of the places given in the first year of the scheme have been in Roman Catholic schools in Scotland. Since the assisted places scheme was introduced earlier this year, 776 places have been granted, 69 of which are in Roman Catholic schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 21, in page 29, line 41, at end insert—
( ) the information which participating schools, on a written request from a parent of a pupil who is eligible for an assisted place, shall supply to that parent;".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment was made for the removal of doubt and to allay the fears of Opposition Members in another place over the Government's intention with regard to the provision of information by schools participating in the assisted places scheme. The Bill contains a general power enabling regulations to be made about
such other matters as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite for the purposes of the scheme.
However, to confirm that there is to be no difference of treatment between the private and public sectors of education in this respect a specific requirement, as already exists in clause 1 of the Bill, new section 28B(1), for education authority schools, has been inserted to make the obligations of schools participating in the assisted places scheme clearer.

Mr. O'Neill: It would have saved a great deal of time had the Minister acceded to our request in Committee. That remark also applies to other points that the other place has seen fit to accept.
Although we are unhappy about the assisted places scheme, we feel that schools within the scheme and in the local authority sector should be accountable.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

CONSULTATION ON, AND CONSENT FOR, CHANGES IN CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL MATTERS

Lords amendment:No. 22, in page 32, line 30, leave out
or any part of such a school

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment clears up a point raised by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which indicated that new section 22A(2), which requires the Secretary of


State to prescribe proposals for closure or change of site of a part of a school, could be interpreted to mean a physical part such as a hut or annex. It is not our intention that such proposals must be the subject of consultation. Under the present legislation, education authorities are required to submit to my right hon. Friend for approval any proposals to alter the stages of education in a school such as the removal of S5 or S6 in secondary schools; but the removal of a part of a school in the physical sense, such as a hut or annex, is entirely a matter for the education authority. We do not consider, therefore, that it would be appropriate to prescribe in regulations made under new section 22A(2), which in part replace the Secretary of State's present controls over proposed changes in educational arrangements, that consultations must be held on the removal of a hut or annex from a school.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause A

INSPECTION OF RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION

Lords amendment:No. 23, after clause 15, insert the following new Clause A—
A. Subsection (2) of section 66 of the principal Act (exclusion of religious instruction from inspection under section 66(1)) shall cease to have effect.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 31.

Mr. Fletcher: The effect of the new clause is to remove the prohibition on the inspection of religious subjects in schools by Her Majesty's Inspectorate. It arises from the Government's wish to ensure that religious education is not placed at a disadvantage in relation to the other subjects in the curriculum whose development is aided by the fact that they are all subject to review by Her Majesty's Inspectorate.
Since taking office, the Government have sought in various ways to foster the place of religious education in the curriculum. In the summer of 1979 my right hon. Friend established a joint committee of the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum and the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board to consider non-examinable courses in religious education and the need for SCE examinations in religious studies. On the basis of the joint committee's work, my right hon. Friend announced in September his agreement to the introduction of an SCE O-grade in religious studies, for which the board envisages examinations being set from 1984.
On the teacher training front, the Government asked colleges of education to treat religious education, from 1980, as a priority subject for the intake of students to pre-service training courses. For the primary schools, my right hon. Friend authorised the committee on primary education of the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum to set up a study of the contribution of home, school and community, including religious aspects, to the education of primary school children. In August, the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum published guidelines for general courses in religious education in the secondary schools intended to mesh with the SCE O-grade syllabus on which the examination board is now working. 

Parallel with these developments, the Government have been conscious of a view, well established even before we took office, but expressed with increasing emphasis by Church and educational interests since, that the development of religious education would continue to be held back unless the prohibition on inspection by Her Majesty's inspectors contained in section 66(2) of the 1980 Act was removed. In announcing to both Houses of Parliament on 28 July our proposal to repeal section 66(2) and in seeking simultaneously the views of various Churches and educational bodies about the principle of removing the statutory prohibition on inspection, the Government affirmed that they shared the widely held view about the disadvantage under which religious education labours.
5 pm
The bodies which my right hon. friend consulted were asked to express a view on the principle of repeal on the basis that the practical implications would be discussed fully with them before the repeal was brought into effect. The educational bodies, including the teacher associations and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, wholly approved the principle while touching on various practical aspects which would need to be covered in the further consultation—for example, that the religious education to be inspected should be taught by properly qualified teachers and that suitably qualified inspectors should be recruited. Of the major Church interests approached, both the Church of Scotland education committee and Catholic education commission welcomed the proposal. Again, practical difficulties were referred to, particularly concerning the need to maintain the safegaurds for the special position of religious education in denominational schools, provided for in section 21 of the 1980 Act.
These practical considerations are for later discussion with the interests concerned. I merely wish to reiterate at this stage that my right hon. Friend intends to pursue them carefully and in detail in the consultations which will follow enactment of the Bill. The Government have no intention of bringing the repeal provided for in the new clause into effect until there has been full consultation on the practical issues with religious and educational bodies.
There was a complaint in another place when the amendment to repeal section 66(2) was introduced that a measure of such significance should have been introduced earlier in the passage of the Bill. The implication was that the Government's action had been hasty and ill-conceived. That is not true. The measure is of considerable significance, and it would have been wrong to have introduced it without adequate consultation. The Government concluded that the prohibition on inspection should be repealed only after serious consideration in the light of a continuing dialogue that my right hon. Friend has had with Church representatives since the Government look office in 1979 and following the consultation during the summer to which I have referred. The new clause is the culmination of a lengthy period of discussion and consultation with all the parties concerned.

Mr. O'Neill: It would appear that everyone except the House has been consulted on this matter. The announcement was made in the form of a written answer on the eve of the Royal Wedding, a day when it was designed to catch maximum publicity for an educational innovation described by the Minister as being of considerable significance. I am concerned because the


Minister talks blithely about deleting from the 1980 Act a section containing three elements that I do not think that he has covered adequately. The section of the act that he seeks to remove states:
It shall be no part of the duty of a person authorised under this section to make an inspection of any educational establishment, to inquire into instruction in religious subjects given therein or to examine any pupil in religious knowledge or in any religious subject or book.
We recognise that the Minister seeks to afford the opportunity to newly appointed inspectors of schools to be allowed to look at the teaching of religion. There are, however, certain questions that must be raised. Is it expected that all children will have to sit SCE O-grade exams in religion? Is it a subject that will be optional in the third and fourth years. If considerable expense is to be involved in setting up yet another section of the schools inspectorate, it would be appropriate for all children in secondary schools to be required to receive religious instruction.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North): Will my hon. Friend think carefully about what he says? I hope he does not mean what he says. He seems to suggest that all children in secondary schools must take religious education. That would be an affront to many teachers who do not hold religious views.

Mr. O'Neill: I am not very grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention because he has not allowed me to develop the point to the extent I had intended. There would obviously have to be the parental right to withdraw from such education. This is a substantial point. If this course is to be made available and if it is of the significance that the Minister describes, is it to be a central part of the curriculum in schools with the obvious opt-out provision that exists at present for parents who, for conscience reasons, have no desire that their children should be exposed to religious education? If so, who can withdraw their children from these classes?
I should like to raise the issue of denominational schools. I accept that the Minister has had consultations with the Roman Catholic Church. Can he say whether the Roman Catholic Church is happy that inspectors should be going into schools to look at what has hitherto been its exclusive preserve, namely, the provision of religious education in regard to examinations?
The Minister has referred to examinations. Are the SCE changes worth while at this stage? The Minister is committed to the implementation of those recommendations of Munn and Dunning that he can get through with minimum expenditure. Will he say whether it is appropriate to set up new courses that will be quickly superseded by the new arrangements in the mid-1980s? We may see that no sooner are examinations organised than the structure that has been created will be dismantled. Had this proposal been introduced earlier, during consideration of the Bill, as it should have been if it is of the importance that the Minister thinks, we would have been able to consider the subject in a more leisurely manner and perhaps give it more careful scrutiny.
We do not object to the amendment. We are concerned, however, about the points that have been raised. One hopes that there would be no question of teachers being required to fill their timetable with periods of religious education in any period of teacher shortage. It is to be hoped that at times when there are insufficient numbers of

teachers of religious education, teachers will be able legitimately, on grounds of conscience, to opt out of taking the extra religious education classes that will be called for. The Minister must make this point clear.
I do not suggest that the teaching profession consists of atheists. However, a considerable number would be most reluctant to participate in such courses. Their consciences will have to be honoured. It would be helpful if the Minister made clear that there is no suggestion that, because of timetabling difficulties at a time of teacher shortage, any teacher will be required to undertake work that their conscience would preclude them doing.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Until I heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) I had not intended to take part in the debate. It may be surprising to some that, as an atheist, I adopt a catholic approach to religious education in schools.
If those who hold strong religious views wish their children to receive religious education or instruction I am happy to see that done, but I object to the attitude of schools that religious education is the norm and parents who do not wish their children to have such education have to exercise their conscientious rights to withdraw them from the subject. That is nonsense in an age when perhaps the majority of the population are atheists or agnostics.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles): That is absolute nonsense.

Mr. Hughes: If the Minister is saying that, following discussions with the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland and educational bodies, there is to be provided from about 1984—perhaps an appropriate date—an SCE O-grade course in religious education, that is fine by me. If he says that it is therefore necessary to have properly trained teachers to provide the course and a properly qualified inspectorate, that is also all right by me.
However, if that is the Minister's argument he ought to put religious education on all fours with every other subject taught in schools and parents should be able to decide whether they want their children to take that course.
I hope that we are moving away from the idea that religious education should be compulsory in schools. I do not think that the Minister is suggesting that, but I hope that as a result of his discussions he will accept that religious education should be an ordinary subject, on a par with mathematics, geography and the rest, so that parents may choose whether they wish their children to take religious education.
It is nonsense that parents who withdraw their children from religious education, and such parents may be Jews, Moslems or atheists, should be regarded as different or abnormal.
I hope that the Minister will give us a categoric assurance that there is no question of adding religious education as a compulsory subject to the curriculum of primary or secondary schools. I hope that the views of parents such as myself, who are not religious, will be respected, because they have as much force and morality as do the views of those who have a religion.

Mr. Maxton: I start with a small, but important, point. The Minister said that religious education had been disadvantaged in the past because it had not had an inspectorate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member


for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for letting me see a letter that he received from the Minister on 24 April this year in which the hon. Gentleman said:
In the light of the developments I have outlined I do not believe it can be argued that because Religious Education is not subject to inspection by HM Inspectorate of Schools the interests of the subject are prejudiced.
There has been a remarkable volte face since then. The Minister now says that religious education must be included in the Bill and his main argument in favour of that is that if it is not inspected the interests of the subject will be prejudiced.
I do not want to duplicate the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), but I agree with him and I am glad that he expressed his views on the Floor of the House. Such views are not expressed here often and it is necessary that we give voice to them on occasions.
5.15 pm
The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North and my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) all referred to religious education, but the 1980 Act and the Lords amendment contain no reference to religious education. The reference is to "religious instruction".

Mr. Donald Stewart: They are the same.

Mr. Maxton: I do not believe that instruction and education are the same thing. The Minister also made that point. He spoke of religious education, but he was talking about religious instruction.
Whom has the Minister consulted? The Churches, of course. We are talking about the instruction of particular religion in particular schools and not about the development and history of religion, comparisons between religion or comparisons between religions and non-religions. Specific religions and credos are taught in our schools under the guise of religious education.
I have no enormous objections to religious education if it gives children an idea of what religion is about, its place in the history of our culture and other cultures in the world and how it has played, and is playing, a part in our society and its development. There are different religions. Some people do not believe in a religion and their views must be respected. I have no objection to a sort of religious education as a voluntary subject in schools.
However, religious instruction is indoctrination—something that is condemned by the Minister and Conservative Members in other parts of our society. I should like the Minister to guarantee that he will ensure that what I have described as religious education is taught in our schools.
Did the Minister consult the Churches of ethnic minorities, such as Muslims and Hindus? Will any attempt be made to ensure that some element of their religions is included in religious education? If not, schools will be failing those minorities. What part will there be for those who do not believe in religion? They may be anti-religious, but anti-religion is part of religion. The forces against religion also have to be taken into account.
How many inspectors will be needed? Will they be divided among the traditional areas? What qualifications will they need? Many senior people in religious education

in Scotland are ministers of the Church of Scotland. Will inspectors be ministers? Many questions remain to be answered.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) referred to the brief correspondence that I had with the Minister earlier this year on this question. I dissent from some of my hon. Friends in welcoming the Minister's conversion. Whether that conversion was the result of education or instruction, we cannot be sure. However, as recently as 16 June 1981 the Minister wrote to me saying
I have yet to be convinced that to introduce inspection... could, on balance, be justified".
Evidently, he has been persuaded rather rapidly.
All the detailed consultation with the Churches and the other interests that he mentioned must have been carried out in an extremely short time. I am glad that this matter is to be subject to inspection, perhaps on the ground that it is the only subject that has to be taught in schools compulsorily. It is, therefore, altogether welcome that a subject that all children have to take at school should now be subject to inspection. I hate to dissent from my hon. Friend in any way, but on this occasion I find myself in agreement with the Minister.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I hope that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) does not feel too apologetic. I am glad to have his support.
I have listened carefully to the views that have been expressed in this short debate. We were determined that religious education in schools should be enhanced. As the hon. Gentleman said, we are talking about the one subject that is compulsory, yet we felt that it was not given its correct place or status in schools. The first step that we determined was that it should be an examinable subject—obviously, an optionally examinable subject—but, nevertheless, that the Consultative Committee on the Curriculum and the Scottish Certificate of Education Examination Board should set up the joint committee to advise the Secretary of State whether an O-grade in religious education was practicable.
I hope that the paper will be acceptable to the various denominations, certainly to the Protestant and Roman Catholic Churches. I understand that there may be one or two optional questions in the paper, but it would be helpful if there were some recognition of the fact that although the Christian religion spans different denominations it is essentially the same religion.
felt, first, that religious education should be an examinable subject. Secondly, I was persuaded, albeit late in the day, that it would further enhance religious education if the inspectorate were brought in. On further examination by my right hon. Friend and myself, it appeared that the final contribution that the Scottish Office could make to ensure that the status of religion in schools was enhanced was to introduce inspection, in addition to making it an examinable subject.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He should use language precisely and make it clear that the examination paper, this SCE O-grade subject, is a Christian religion paper and should be so defined. So far he has said that there might be questions about Catholicism and that there might be questions about Protestantism. He has said nothing about the Jewish faith,


or the Muslim, or anyone else. So perhaps he should describe it properly as a Christian education SCE O-grade paper. Then we shall all know where we stand.

Mr. Fletcher: I was coming to that point in due course. However, I shall deal with it now, not because the hon. Gentleman invites me to do so, but because I believe that it is right to state my position on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his experience at the Scottish Office that the CCC advises the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State himself is not empowered to interfere directly with the curriculum. The view that I take, as one who holds this office temporarily, is that it should be essentially a paper on the teaching of the Christian religion. I, as an individual, have no objections to the broader dimensions of world religions being taught in our schools, but I see nothing wrong, in a Christian country, in the essential teaching in the subject that we are discussing being teaching of the Christian religion. I make no apology for expressing my personal views.
My experience of the so-called minority religions. whether Muslim, Jewish or anything else—and it is something which I very much envy—is that they usually look after their own religious interests far better than the majority religions in this country. Those who claim to have some experience of teaching, particularly Labour Members, will be aware that children from the minority religions who attend our schools usually have a stronger basic religious training at home than those of the majority Christian religion. That is something that should be borne in mind. I repeat that I have no objection to a broad perspective of religion being taught in our schools, but I do not apologise for my personal view that the emphasis should be on the Christian religion.
The purpose of the exercise is to enhance the standing of religious education in our schools. Unlike Labour Members, we are not half-hearted in our desire to do so.
I come to the more specific points that were raised. I was asked whether the Catholic Church was happy with these arrangements. I have said that the Catholic Education Commission has been consulted and is happy with the arrangements. It has accepted the principle, and sees little practical difficulty in the inspection of the examination course. There may be more practical points to discuss about the inspection of the general course for all pupils, but there will continue to be supervision of the content by the Church supervisor, who is often the parish priest, while the inspectors will be able to help with the method and assessment of the effectiveness of the courses.
I was asked about the right of teachers to opt out. The general expectation now is that religious education will be taught by specialist secondary teachers who have chosen to qualify in that subject. Quite a number have already done so. There should be no question of dragooning unwilling teachers of other subjects to teach religious education. Nothing would be more damaging than that.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said that he takes a catholic view of education. I know that he takes a catholic view of parental choice, and I have always appreciated his support—mainly silent, but I always know that it is there—when we discuss matters of parental choice. Let me repeat, if I have not made it clear , that the conscience clause, section 9 of the 1980 Act, will still apply, and parents who do not wish their children to receive religious education will be entitled to have their children withdrawn.

Mr. Home Robertson: I shall be grateful if the Minister will satisfy my curiosity in one regard. As he was totally opposed at the end of June to arranging for inspection of religious education in Scottish schools, will he explain at what point on the road to Damascus he saw the light?

Mr. Fletcher: It does not matter. The important fact for the hon. Gentleman should be that I have seen the light.

Mr. O'Neill: I want to ask the Minister two questions that he has not yet really answered. With the opt-out provision, will it be compulsory for children in third and fourth years of secondary schooling to do a religious education course, in the same way as it is compulsory at present for them to do English and arithmetic? Although they do not have to go on to CSE examination, they nevertheless have to undergo courses in these two subjects. Does the Minister propose to elevate religious education to the same position as those subjects? Will the Minister make that clear?
Secondly, will the Minister also take account of the fact that many of the people who have been trained and are qualified to teach in religious education at present do so on the assumption that they will be teaching in schools what is to all intents and purposes comparative religion, which, although it may well have a strong Christian content, nevertheless does not imply that they themselves subscribe to the Christian religion?
Therefore, if there is to be some test of faith of the individuals concerned or some implication that there is faith in the Christian religion among the specialist secondary teachers, problems could arise if people decide to act on the basis of conscience and say that they are happy to teach comparative religion but are not happy to teach a Christian-based religious education course, the like of which the Minister has been referring to.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I think that the answer to that point is that the enhancement of religious education in our schools, which we hope will follow as a result of the steps that we are taking, may well cause some teachers of comparative religion to consider the new syllabuses that we expect will be devised. There is much consultation still to take place on these matters, but if the syllabuses that are brought into schools are too Christian, for example, for some teachers of religious education and they do not wish to teach them, that is entirely a matter for them. These points will be subject to continual consultation. As I have already said, none of these steps will be introduced until we have settled many important matters in much more detail.
I repeat that our aim is to enhance religious education in our schools. This means that the present arrangements in some of our schools, where the minimum of lip service is paid to religious education, will have to be substantially improved. The extent to which that will affect pupils in the third and fourth year, and in the first and second year, will depend on the arrangements that now exist in schools. I would hazard a guess that most of our schools will, as a result of these arrangements, provide more effective religious education in the future than they have been doing in the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1

APPEAL COMMITTEES

Lords amendmentNo. 24, in page 53, line 29, at end insert—
A person who is a member of the education committee of the authority shall not be chairman of an appeal committee.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is supported by the Government in recognition of the force of the argument that the chairman of an appeal committee should be seen by the parents as standing outside the authority's policies and decisions on educational matters. As hon. Members will appreciate, parents must feel that their case has received a fair hearing in a reference to an appeal committee and that the chairman is impartial in his decision. While I would argue that the essential protection for parents in this regard is laid in paragraphs 5 and 6 of schedule 1, which exclude from membership of an appeal committee any person involved with the decision on the placing request in question, none the less I accept that doubt may arise in the minds of some parents if a member of an education committee can be a chairman of an appeal committee. The Scottish Consumer Council has also made representations about the matter and it is strong in its views about the extent of public misgivings on this issue. The present amendment therefore puts the matter beyond doubt and excludes a member of the education committee from service as chairman. It would not, however, exclude a member of the regional council who is not a member of the education committee.

Mr. O'Neill: We shall not divide the House on this matter but we have certain misgivings about the amendment. We feel that this is another example of the Government seeking to foment distrust in local authorities and to undermine the authority of councillors. However, there is another aspect to the matter on which I should like the Minister's view.
What is the status of parent members of school councils? In some instances, school councils are deemed to be sub-committees of the education committee of the local education authority. What would be the standing of a parent who was elected to a school council and who subsequently became the chairman of an appeal committee? Would he be debarred from continuing in that position?
As the Minister will doubtless remember, in Standing Committee we spoke of the sterling work done by the school councils in Strathclyde, which, after all, constitutes half of Scotland. These school councils have played a very active role, right up to appeal committee level, so it is not impossible under these arrangements for a school council member to be involved. It would be most unfortunate if this amendment extended to that group as well. I am sure that the Scottish Consumer Council did not have those individuals in mind. I am sure that the Scottish Parent-Teacher Council, which normally runs in tandem with the consumer council on these matters, would not wish for the debarment of members of school councils who were there because of their role as parents rather than as elected representatives.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Our legal advice is that school councils are not sub-committees of education committees, so a parent member is not debarred.

Therefore, the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has made would not apply in this case in the legal sense. From what I have said the hon. Gentleman will understand that the purpose of the exercise, in referring to the chairman of the committee, is to reassure the parent who is appearing before an appeal committee.
This point was made strongly to us by the Scottish Consumer Council, and we felt that it should be taken very much into account. If parents go in to make their appeal, which can often be quite a process for people who are not used to appealing or arguing in this way, and then find that the chairman of the appeal committee is a member of the education committee, they are bound, rightly or wrongly—perhaps mainly wrongly—to feel that the dice may be loaded against them before they start. It is that specific point that the amendment seeks to overcome.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

APPLICATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT TO RECORDED CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

Lords amendment: No. 25, in page 56, line 29, leave out "an education authority" and insert
the education authority for the area to which the child belongs (in accordance with section 23(3) of this Act)

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 26.

Mr. Fletcher: These amendments were moved in another place by my noble Friend the Minister of State to establish an exception to the general principle that the duties of education authorities in respect of placing requests extend to requests relating to children from outwith their area.
The parents of recorded children have been granted the right, not available to others, to make a placing request specifying a grant-aided or independent school making provision for special educational needs. Special needs are, of course, already met in this way and quite frequently the school involved is not in the child's home area.
As matters stood, the education authority receiving the placing request, which might in theory be any authority, would have a duty to finance the child's attendance at the specified school unless one of the listed grounds of refusal applied. It is clearly appropriate that any such duty to give financial support should be restricted to the home authority. The amendments provide that a placing request specifying a grant-aided or independent special school is valid only if it is made to the education authority which, in terms of section 23(3) of the 1980 Act, is responsible for making provision for the child's education.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 72, line 26, leave out "and 51" and insert ", 51 and 60 to 65F"

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment and is consequential upon amendments Nos. 7, 8, 13, 15 and 16, to which the


House has already agreed. The amendment widens the regulation-making power in section 23(3) of the 1980 Act to include the purpose of sections 60 to 65F of the 1980 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 28, in page 72, line 27, at end insert—
7. After section 23(6) of that Act, there shall be inserted the following subsection— 
(6A) Nothing in this section affects the duty under section 28A of this Act or that section as it has effect under schedule A2 to this Act of an education authority to place a child in accordance with a placing request or authorises them to decline to make for the pupil to whom the placing request relates such provision of school education as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is necessary to put beyond a shadow of doubt the duty of an education authority to comply with a placing request where the child concerned does not belong to the authority's area.
Under the provisions of new section 28A, education authorities will be under an obligation to accede to a parent's request that his child should be admitted to a particular school except where one or more of the specified grounds of refusal apply. These grounds do not include the parents' area of residence: we do not believe that an authority should be able to refuse a parent's choice of school simply because the parent lives outside the catchment area for the school.
The Government have made plain to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that they believe the same principle should apply across local authority boundaries. That is, an authority should not be able to refuse a placing request simply because the child concerned comes from outwith its area. Of course, it will be able to give priority to children from its own area, but if there is still room in a school after it has met the needs of those children it should not be able to refuse a place to someone from across the regional boundary or across the border. In accordance with this policy new section 28A of the 1980 Act, contained in clause 1 of the Bill, is expressed in general terms relating to a placing request made by any parent, not confined to a parent living in the area of the authority to which the request is addressed.
It has been suggested, however, that there may be an inconsistency between new section 28A and the existing section 23(1) of the 1980 Act which could be interpreted as empowering, but not requiring, an education authority to make provision for a child resident in the area of another education authority or a local authority in England and Wales. Lest it be argued that this gives authorities a degree of discretion over whether they should or should not cater for such a child, the present amendment adds an additional subsection (6A) to section 23, and makes plain that nothing in that section affects an authority's duty to accede to a placing request and make provision for a child from outwith its area.

Mr. O'Neill: Who will pay for the education of children who go outwith their local authority? Will the home local authority or the receiving authority accede to the parents' request?

Mr. Fletcher: The home authority will automatically come under an obligation to pay the outwith area fee or contribution to the authority providing for the child. Thus,

schedule 9 repeals the proviso to section 23(2) of the 1980 Act, which at present allows the Secretary of State to direct that no contribution should be recoverable by the receiving authority on the ground that
there was no sufficient reason why he should not have attended a school provided by the authority of the area to which he belongs".
This provision repeals those words.
The amount of the fee payable by one education authority to another is in practice fixed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on behalf of all education authorities, at present on the basis that it covers the full average cost of providing for a pupil; and under a similar arrangement it would also be open to the convention, in practice, to fix a fee covering the marginal cost only of admitting a pupil to a place that would otherwise remain empty.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 8

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

Lords amendment:No. 29, in page 72, leave out from beginning of line 34 to end of line 4 on page 73 and insert—
2. During any period—
after the date of the coming into force of the provision of section 1(1) of this Act inserting into the principal Act the provision which becomes paragraph (d) of section 28A(3) of that Act; but
before the date when section 4 of this Act comes into force,

there shall be submitted for the said paragraph (d) the following paragraph—

'(d) if the specified school is a specified school and the child has not been ascertained as requiring special education;'.

2A. During any period—

after the date of the coming into force of the provision of section 1(1) of this Act inserting into the principal Act the provisions which become sections 28C and 28E of that Act; but
before the date when section 4 of this Act comes into force,

the said sections 28C and 28E shall not apply in respect of a decision of an education authority refusing a placing request made in respect of a child who has been ascertained as requiring special education.".

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Though it is at first sight fairly long and complex, this Government amendment was moved in the other place for technical drafting reasons. It substitutes more precise wording to identify those provisions in clause 1, whose coming into operation is to be taken as the starting point for the transitional period leading up to the introduction of the "special educational needs" provisions of the Bill. During this period the "placing in schools" provisions in clause 1 will operate by reference to the existing system of special education.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment:No. 30, in page 73, line 30, at end insert—
3A. Any consultation made or other thing done by an education authority for the purposes of their functions under Part I of the principal Act before the making of regulations under section 22A(2) of the principal Act which would if made or done after the making of those regulations be consultation for the purposes of section 22A(1) of the principal Act or part of the process of such consultation shall be deemed to be such consultation or, as the case may be, a part of the process of such consultation.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to clarify transitional arrangements to be made in connection with new section 22A inserted into the principal Act by clause 6. As hon. Members are aware, new section 22A requires consultations to be held on proposed changes in education arrangements of a kind prescribed in regulations. It would clearly be both wasteful and unreasonable if consultations or other actions by an education authority, which were in accordance with this new section, but which were carried out before this Bill became law and the regulations were made, had to be repeated following enactment. The amendment therefore provides that, in so far as such consultations carried out before the making of the regulations were in accordance with consultations required to be carried out under new section 22A, they will be deemed to be consultations held under that new section or part of the process of such consultations.
In effect, the authority would not be required to repeat consultations which in the event fulfilled the requirements of new section 22A when regulations under that new section come into operation.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 31 agreed to.

Road Traffic

Mr. John Prescott: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Hereford and Worcester Trial Area Order 1981 (S.I., 1981, No. 885), dated 19 June 1981, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 July, be revoked.
This prayer gives us an opportunity to discuss a trial area. In the Hereford and Worcester area the concept has been in being for only three weeks. Indeed, the concept was contained in the Transport Act 1980. It is a controversial matter. We opposed the concept of a trial area in Committee and on Report, but we were defeated. This is the second, not the first order. The Norfolk order also reflected the Act's intention to declare a designated area as a trial area for the operation of public road passenger services.
In April, we did not oppose the latter order because it was largely in keeping with the concept embodied in the Bill. In that area there has not been much controversy about the order's implementation. However, that is not true of the Hereford and Worcester trial area order. That is an entirely different kettle of fish.
It is important to remind ourselves about the Government's intentions when they designed these trial areas. Trial areas are not a new concept to Parliament. Some years ago a Labour Government used the term "trial areas" for experiments with certain types of transportation in rural areas where transport was difficult or expensive to maintain. Therefore, we have been involved in the principle of trials. However, the development of a trial area for all public bus transport in a designated area is a completely new concept. An attempt will be made to see whether road service licences can be done away with and whether the consumer can be provided with a greater choice in the provision of transport.
In our earlier debates the Secretary of State outlined his anxiety about the decline in the number of bus passengers since 1949. He pointed out that the figure of 17,000 million passengers had declined to 7,000 million by 1979. That considerable decline worried hon. Members on both sides of the House. The Minister particularly wished to see whether it was possible to increase the choice available to passengers within a certain area by dismantling the system of controls that still exists in major parts of Britain. I refer to the road service licences that are given by the Traffic Commissioners. Appeals concerning them can be made to the Secretary of State.
The Minister believes that the concept should be applied throughout the country though he is only prepared to test it in limited areas. We support him in that. Although we complain about the possible consequences of operating the scheme in a limited area, we do not wish to unleash ideological concepts on the travelling public in the country at large. The Minister was quite clear. He felt that this was an interesting limited experiment to see whether he could set the people and operators free. He wanted to become the Freddie Laker of the roads. The idea was that these trial areas would provide a good opportunity to test the theory that if one removes the requirement for a road service licence, the public will get better services and the taxpayer will pay less in subsidies.
We were told that 10 counties were straining at the leash to become members of this exclusive club of trial


area operators. When they realised the significance of what the private and public transport operators told them about the maintenance of services, they shied off. They feared losing the integrated transport system. They were not prepared to put the system at risk, no matter how much it had declined over the years. They did not share the Minister's enthusiasm. The Minister was in favour of the scheme but he was somewhat sceptical about the role of road service licences. I remind the House of the Minister's remarks in Committee. He said:
What is in the Bill is based on prudence and caution. We wish to test the belief that road service licensing will prove unnecessary in trial areas introduced in consultation with the county councils and upon application by the county councils themselves.
That was said during a debate about the right of county councils to consult district councils and whether district councils should have a veto on this question in the event of a disagreement about applications for trial areas between counties and districts. There is a considerable difference of opinion between the district councils and county council in the Hereford area.
The Secretary of State also said:
The trial area itself is basically an area in which there is no restriction on the number of bus services."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 5 February 1980; c. 936–65.]
It is clear from that that trial areas should be free from restriction. We must allow bus operators to give the best service that they can.
That statement was echoed by the new Secretary of State in a speech at the Conservative Party conference because he said:
Our trial areas in Norfolk and Hereford and Worcester will, I hope, show us the way forward to further easing of restrictions.
The idea behind the trial area was to be free of restrictions and not to burden our bus operators by commissioners deciding when a bus should run and what the fare should be. Such restrictions were regarded as a restraint on the provision of adequate services for the consumer.
Looking at the facts of the Hereford case, one finds that the system is not as the Minister expected. Since certain financial inducements have been offered by the Government, I assume that agreement has been reached on how trial contracts in this area will be handled. The arguments in Committee about whether the Government would force such a system on areas have been reflected by the division in the county council of 45 votes to 33 after a debate on whether to risk being a trial area. That proposal has been vigorously opposed by some district councils which have only consultation rights. They will have to live with the judgment of the county council. There is a unique alliance between private and public sector operators against the implementation of the trial area.
The expected 10 applicants did not knock on the Government's door, and Ministers have had to travel round with bags of cash to induce local authorities to introduce the system. I understand that it cost the Minister £200,000 in Norfolk and £140,000 in Hereford. I admit that that money might represent a combination of a direct grant and a transport supplementary grant, but it was paid out to persuade people to operate a system that the Minister once thought would not cost money. He believed that it would involve less money and produce better services. The counties have agreed to the system, not because of conviction but because they have been bribed financially. I am reminded of one of his speeches. 

The press notice of a speech by the Under-Secretary, headed "Travel squandermania criticised", stated:
The spending of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money on cheap bus fares in the bigger cities is a waste of resources that could be spent in much more sensible ways and could lead to a serious loss of jobs.
That did not prevent the Under-Secretary from running round with taxpayers money asking authorities to buy the trial area concept.
According to a press statement by the local authority concerned, there will be no decorating of the area's 428 schools before the next century. The authority, apparently, will not be able to maintain the schools properly. Garden parties and fetes are being organised to raise money to repair rotten doors, and so on. If the Minister has £100,000 to spare, it would be better to give it to the education system so that the minimum standards of education may be guaranteed in the area of Hereford.
However, the Minister has decided to use financial inducements. It would not be unfair to say that he is using bribes to persuade authorities to accept the trial area concept.
What is the result? I have seen the figures. It appears that the fears of some hon. Members in Committee might well be justified, although it is a little early to say whether the new system has worked. The same applies to the Norfolk scheme. In Committee, we reduced the experimental period from three years to two years because we hoped to reduce the damage that we believed might occur as a result of pursuing the principle of trial areas. A number of authorities expressed views similar to those expressed in Committee.
The Hereford scheme is different from the Norfolk scheme. It is also different from that envisaged in Committee. We must bear in mind that the Government's intention was to remove restrictions and to set bus operators and people free. The plan was to remove the requirement for the road service licence. However, a new licence came into being. The county council imposed a new requirement. It decided that it would determine the nature of the service, the competition and the type and quality of service operated. Education contracts are an important source of revenue to bus operators, particularly private operators. All operators were requested to give notice of the areas in which they would operate without subsidy. The real restrictions applied to areas for which bids have been made for contracts which require public support. The restrictions are considerable.
Many forms have to be filled in when a request is made for a trial area. Information about timetables, fares, quarterly changes in the provision of services and the rates to be charged for scholars is required. Minimum and maximum fare levels have to be provided when a request for a subsidy to operate a service is made.
It was much more information than the commissioner required under the old service. The operators have to fill in more forms and provide more information, presumably on the basis that the contract lasts only for 12 months—that is, if they can keep up with the contract during that time.
Clearly, a road service licence has been replaced by a county council licence, except on the profitable areas where it does not require the agreement of the county council, although there are restrictions placed on that. If an operator is in receipt of a subsidy under the county council licence, he cannot compete on a profitable route and provide an alternative to the consumer. Apparently


that is not allowed, because, if he does that, he will be denied the subsidy given by the county council. Indeed, to make the restrictions tighter, the county council has set up a register—a club for subsidised operators. If an operator competes on profitable routes and he is in receipt of a subsidy for another route, he faces the penalty of the loss of that subsidy.
The commissioner did not lay down any such restrictions. The restrictions for a county council licence are considerably greater than those for a commissioner licence. There is a disadvantage about appeals which Parliament writes in when it gives the power to the commissioner to decide such principles. Therefore, we now have a considerably different position. There is a further example of more restrictions being placed than was envisaged by the commissioner system. It is the old problem of private competition that everybody fears. When an operator produces a timetable, another bus operator can arrive three minutes earlier. The Transport Act 1930 was passed to prevent that sort of development. Under the provisions of the present Act there is nothing to stop somebody working three minutes ahead of an established route, and the existing company will need county council permission to withdraw. The fear is there will be another restriction providing that if the operator is in receipt of a subsidy, he will lose that subsidy if he carries out the competition that the Minister says he wants on routes which are not conditioned by subsidies. The evidence shows something quite different from what was intended by the Act, because there is a regulated system controlled by the county council.
The result is difficult to assess, The Minister says that it will take two years and that we must wait and see. I am glad that I am not in the trial area and do not have to make the judgment. I have visited it and made clear my views about what I think the result will be at the end of the two years. I shall stand by that, and we shall see what the position is. However, sufficient evidence is beginning to surface. For example, the National Bus Company has reduced its routes to 400,000 miles from approximately 700,000 miles. It has pulled out of the non-profitable sector, gone away from the cross-subsidisation, and decided to limit its activities solely to the profitable area. There is no doubt that has happened. Whether the routes were profitable or non-profitable is a matter of judgment, but I am told by the company that there has been that reduction in mileage. It has led to a restriction of services at weekends, in the early hours and at night. It creates problems not for the majority of passengers, but for those who have to travel at those times. There is a student in my area who, because of that restriction in Humberside, cannot get to a lecture at 9 o'clock in the morning. He can get to the town only 10 or 20 miles away at half past nine or 10 o'clock. A few people only may be inconvenienced, but it undermines the way that we think a public service should be run.
There has been a restriction in services. The private operators have taken up some of the services. We must wait and see how long they will last. Some prices have risen, others have been reduced and many remain the same. The report on that position estimates that, having gone through all the tendering systems, only one new operator was established. Two or three applied for each of the contracts, although it had been envisaged in the survey

that 25 new operators would emerge. The subsidy system budgeted for £160,700. Presumably, most of that is Government money so that the ratepayers do not gamble with their money. The operators are gambling with the bags of money given to them by the Minister when they were induced to take on the trial areas. The tenders show a reduction of about £62,000 on the year. The county surveyor is much more realistic about the possibilities. He believes that the service may cost more. It depends whether Midland Red can maintain its present services. There are doubts about that, because of the financial problems of the National Bus Company and the further restrictions on its financial obligations imposed by the Government in May.
The smaller operators who have won contracts may find in a few months that they are not able to meet their obligations and that the service has cost much more than they estimated. There is evidence for that both in the Midland Red area and in my area of Humberside where the operators found, after two or three months, that the operation cost considerably more than the tender price they had submitted to the council.
The reality is that the council recognises that in some instances some tenders may have been too low for economic viability and that certain operators may wish to terminate contracts after a few months' experience. The conditions of contract provide for that eventuality. The council wishes to show that the service costs less, but it allows contracts for less than 12 months because the tendering price may be too low and may have to be increased in two or three months. Those are the fears when an established system is disrupted.
I must tell the Minister that one of the large operators in that area—I think it is Yeovils—opposed the system. It has 40 buses and claims that it has lost three operations through the tendering system. It believes that contracts have gone to operators with low tenders who may not be able to work economically. The company also points out that one operator who won a contract operates from a car park and has some arrangement with a garage about maintenance with non-union low-wage labour. No established bus operator, private or public, can hope to compete on those terms. The disaster is that the county council is prepared to allow for that. It is making a gain at the moment, but it admits that in a few months the operators may be knocking on its door and asking for more money. We must bear in mind that in future the costs of transport will increase far more than those in any other sector. The surveyor's report shows a certain amount of realism about the system upon which the council has embarked.
There will be fewer services for the consumer. Some of the operators feel that they have to operate the system because the county council is enforcing it. Although they are co-operating, they are extremely doubtful about the full circumstances and consequential effects of the system.
Our argument is that the order does not reflect the intentions of the trial areas as envisaged. We think that it raises important points about transportation and transport policies generally. One example is the new interpretation of the trial area that has been canvassed and debated. It may mean that the county councils that I visited in the summer, such as Devon, which would not touch the trial areas with a barge pole, but were perhaps tempted ideologically to consider it, now find and believe that if they can control the services by the purse strings—as many


county councils have wanted to do—they will be happy to have that control. The Minister may find more than two or three knocking on his door because the trial has beer adjusted not to the trial area envisaged and not to whether fewer restrictions produce better services. In fact, I have pointed out the restrictions. We find ourselves having to adjust to a situation which we think will lead to a deterioration in the established public sector at the expense of the small operator who is much more susceptible to the costs and operations of transport planning.
The second area of major concern is the National Bus Company. It is a large operator with considerable overheads. It is probably a higher cost operator than it needs to be. When I look at the sort of offers and terms with which the National Bus Company has been involved, I often ask myself "When you did the map exercise, why did you not offer them 400,000 miles at no subsidy?" Why was that not considered? I do not agree with that principle. There is much work to be carried out on the costings of the National Bus Company. Various criticisms have been made in the House—

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough): Perhaps the NBC and other public transport operators recognise that hitherto there has been a duty to attempt to provide a degree of public service as opposed to a purely commercial service.

Mr. Prescott: I was coming to that sound transport concept, which is wrapped up in the question of cross-subsidisation. Since 1930 we have all believed that a balanced service should be provided and that it should be cross-subsidised. What is taking place in the trial areas may undermine that principle in the remainder of Britain. It may provide a direct threat. If the revenue and passenger miles of the NBC begin to reduce, that will affect its operating costs which, in turn, will affect other areas of its operation. Approximately 60 per cent. of operators in Britain are in the public sector, and they carry about 90 per cent. of the traffic. Therefore, it is important to maintain that major section of transportation.
We must bear in mind that the financial targets placed upon the NBC by the previous Secretary of State require it to make further cuts in its costs. The Secretary of State said:
I have also set the company a performance aim for 1981 in terms of a reduction in operating costs per vehicle mile of 3 per cent. in real terms.—[Official Report, 22 May 1981; Vol. 5, c. 201.]
That will increase the difficulties of maintaining the cross-subsidised service in which the NBC has been involved If the inter-city services are taken away from the NBC, its problems will become considerably worse, with serious consequences for the transportation system. That raises the question of the future of the NBC. However, I recognise that some deal has been made about legitimately considering the heavy capital interest costs of the company and its contribution to meeting its costs.
Worry has been expressed by those living in the area affected by the order about safety operating standards. The Minister should keep a close watch on the operating standards, licences and control of the buses. It will be useful to know whether the standards are lower—as commonly alleged—because of smaller operators working on lower costs and cutting corners and paying non-union labour.
I turn to the issue of licences. The order means that licences will be issued by county councils, which will

replace the commissioner. There is no appeal against a county council decision. There is no appeal to the Secretary of State. Previously, if an operator applied for certain routes that the commissioner thought would be against the public interest—for example, Whitehaven—and even if the inspector appointed by the Minister agreed, as he did, with the commissioner, the Secretary of State could and did say "My judgment is far better and I am overruling the decision." That sort of appeal will no longer be possible.
The Opposition oppose the order because it does not reflect the terms and conditions laid down in the Act. It raises important issues that have not been debated by Parliament. The restrictions and controls of licensing being developed in the Hereford area may reduce the full consequences of the order. However, we believe that the order will lead to a reduction in services for the consumer at a higher cost to the taxpayer and ratepayer. We shall oppose the order in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The order affects my constituency. I have a long-standing interest in transport matters and spoke on Second Reading of the Bill. I do not intend to detain the House by repeating my Second Reading speech. However, I said at that time—and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) agreed with me—that the proposals should not be put forward as a panacea for all the ills of rural transport. The problems are deeprooted and there is little or no money in rural transport. We fall back on the argument that, bearing in mind all the faults of the old system, we should achieve a proper level of subsidy, which, I regret, must always be given from our precious resources, in the most meritorious manner.
I wish to deal with some of the specific remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). We are grateful to him for providing an opportunity to discuss the matter. He put his case fairly. As he said, it is too early to decide whether the system is working. He mentioned that several times. Therefore, I hope that the Opposition will not force the House to divide. The hon. Gentleman said that he was glad that doctrinaire policies were not being followed throughout Britain. That is a two-edged sword. A debate at this stage is somewhat doctrinaire. We are discussing a worthy experiment that should be allowed to pursue its course.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that district councils were against the order. In the short time that has been available to me, I have not found that to be the case. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had good reason to make that claim, which, I assume, is a national summary. I wish him good luck in that context. However, in the Herefordshire area, where the experiment is taking place, district councils have not complained to me, although I have received five, if not 10, letters this week complaining about virtually everything else under the sun.

Mr. Prescott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not saying that district councils are not opposed to the order. They have taken votes on the issue. The city of Hereford is against it, as are other district councils. Simply because the hon. Gentleman has not received correspondence about the matter does not mean that the district councils in his area are not against it.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has good grounds for his remarks. As he will appreciate, the city of Hereford is not in my constituency, although it is in my area. It is not one of the most rural councils. Indeed, it is the most urbanised council in my area. The very rural Leominster district council and other district councils will be primarily affected by the order. There are three in my constituency, and they have not complained to me.
I and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have relentlessly pursued the byways and highways of our constituencies during the recess. I visited 35 villages in remote parts of my constituency, in addition to towns and other places.
It should go on record that no complaint was ever made. It was mentioned only in the context that fares were tending to drop and that the National Bus Company was retreating to the main routes and leaving more of the isolated routes to the main competition. I say, so far so good for this experiment and for Leominster. I hope that the Minister is pleased to hear these words. He knows that my area requires this experiment to continue. If, at the end of the day—I shall not be doctrinaire or dogmatic—it is not working, for whatever reason, the House must reassess it.
This is a long-standing problem. The public are not using the services that are provided because they have motor cars. Most people have motor cars and the proportion of those in rural areas who have motor cars is higher than in urban areas. The net result is that the old and young, who are often poor, suffer. That is the problem now and it was the problem before the experiment was introduced.
We would all love to subsidise virtually everything if we could. However, when we do not have the necessary resources and when we have not had them for many years, we must consider seriously, fairly and honestly which are the most suitable areas to subsidise. We must stretch the private sector's role as much as possible. We must see what it can do.
The old licensing procedures involved far too much procedure and it was far too difficult for any "new boy" to come into the business. With this experiment we shall be able to see what can be done and I hope that we shall have a much better service for the public. I hope that the experiment will succeed. We must bear in mind the poor old customer.
I have much time for national bus companies and I do not criticise them or other original operators, which have been called upon to play a difficult role. However, at the end of the day the customer must be considered. If the experiment succeeds, the customer will be much better off. Indeed, he is already better off on certain routes. If it does not work and we start losing too many routes, it will not be enough to say that the fare has been reduced on route A if we lose routes B and C.
There has been competition and there has been tendering within the experiment. It is said that the county council's role in some ways supersedes the traffic commissioners' role. The county council has not considered the rather tortuous criteria that the traffic commissioners used to have to consider. More importantly, it has put no fewer than 53 contracts out to tender. Many small operators have tendered for them and have obtained them. 

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, said that there were very few "new boys" coming in. However, if the 26 had come in, or even more than that, no doubt the cries of "cowboy" and "sheet tender" would have gone up more loudly than the criticisms that have been expressed by the Opposition. The experiment has given us one new boy and we have the sound system of existing operators who are mainly small. Where there has been no competition and there was no tendering, the tenders, in the view of the county council, have been much more expensive.
Surely it makes sound sense for the nationalised bus companies to drop back to the main routes. We are all familiar with the rural areas, even those who represent urban constituencies. One has only to drive through them by day or night to see vast Midland Red buses. In my area there are vast buses. If the lights are on at night, one might see a solitary passenger sitting in the back seat admiring what he can see of the view. That is not good enough when one considers the amount of public money that is being expended.
I want public money to go where it is needed—for example, to schools. It should not be poured into a company operating on both large and small roads, such as the National Bus Company, irrespective of the needs of the consumer and, although operating properly and well, expensively by comparison with the humble routes that might be operated at any given time.
Finally, the experiment is being studied by many reputable bodies, including Bristol university, which has shown much interest in it. It is an active concept. It is far more active in Hereford and Worcester than in Norfolk. Norfolk has had its experiment and it does not seem to have taken off so well there. I concede that immediately. A go is being made of it in Hereford and Worcester and I ask the House to wait and see. I hope that we shall have a more informed debate subsequently. At present, as the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said, it is premature for us to seek to ascertain where the House stands on this matter.

Mr. Peter Fry:: First, I declare my interest, which is well known to those who take part in transport debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a significant remark. He said that public transport in rural areas virtually cannot survive without subsidy. That is one of the most significant aspects of this short debate. In the years when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, some of us thought profoundly how we could improve the level of public transport, especially in rural England, where it appeared to be collapsing.
As I understood the original intention of the experimental areas, it was to have a virtual "free for all" and to see what could be provided. It was not intended to feed in public money from the center to keep services going. If that had been the original idea, we would have approached the problem from a slightly different angle. Having said that, it is significant that there now appears to be a realisation that in many parts of the country, we cannot keep even a skeleton of public transport without some subsidy. Whether that subsidy is paid on transport grounds, which I would dispute, or on social service


grounds is a subject that the House should debate on a future occasion. However, this debate is useful. Unfortunately, it is too late to be effective.
A prayer to annul the order should have been tabled before the experiment came into being. As I understand it, it has been operating for about three months. In fairness, we should await what happens in Hereford and Worcester.
Some of the questions asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) were interesting. Will many of the small operators find before 12 months are out that they are regretting the tender that they submitted and that there will not be the improved services that were intended? The Government are right to experiment and it is right to let the experiment run its course. However, at this stage I shall sound one or two words of warning to follow some of the comments that have been made. Cross-subsidisation has been the effective means of maintaining what public transport there is in many areas. We can disagree with cross-subsidisation when we can move completely away from it. If we do, we must accept the corollary that unprofitable services are likely to be dropped.
I accept that over the short term, or even the medium to long term, Many people feel able to operate a service better and more economically than those operated in the public or private sectors. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that what happened in coaching surprised even him. By and large it has not been the private operator who has cleaned up in the inter-coaching service. That has been done by the National Bus Company and its subsidiaries because of their size and organisation. They have been able to undercut and in some areas they have put out of business the private operators who had hoped to take advantage of the 1980 Transport Act.
I am not saying that that is right or wrong. I am merely suggesting that the intentions behind the Act have not been fulfilled by events. I suspect that the Government's intentions in respect of experimental areas will follow a similar pattern. In some areas their intentions will be fulfilled but in others they will not.
However, I am dismayed that the county council has apparently been put in the position of judge, jury, prosecuting counsel and just about everything else. I remind my hon. and learned Friend that, during the passage of the 1978 Transport Act, when the Conservative Party was in Opposition, we strenuously advanced the view that district councils should have a greater say in the transport balance. There were battles on that issue on many mornings in Committee. It is odd that the two parties appear to have transposed themselves now that the other is in Government.
The district councils often know better than the county councils. They know what services the people want. As we get nearer to the population by approaching the first tier of elected representatives we often find that that man or woman knows better what his or her area wants.
There is a great danger in making it appear that the traffic commissioner is virtually superfluous in experimental areas. I have spoken to private and public operators. I have discussed these matters with trade unions and bus operators. I have discovered that over the years there has been a healthy respect for the independence and integrity of the commissioners. If responsibility is handed solely to a local authority—dare I mention the building of empires?—there is a danger that some of the decisions that are taken will be viewed in a somewhat different light from

those that were taken by the commissioners and that there will not be the same respect for those making the decisions.
I shall not oppose the order. The experiment should take place. Even if it proves to be a disaster it will be useful. That is because it will teach us how our ideas operate when put into practice. That is the only way in which we can test anything. We may theorise and write books, but at the end of the day we must implement our ideas.
I commend my hon. and learned Friend and the Government for introducing the experiment but I hope that we shall not rush ahead and encourage too many experimental areas before we have examined closely the way in which the existing ones are operating. It would be a retrograde step to bribe too many areas to have experimental areas before we are aware of the long-term effects of those that are already in operation.
There is a growing uneasiness among bus operators about how they will cope with the phasing out of bus grant. This is not a party political issue. The Labour Government arranged to phase out bus grant and the Conservative Administration have not changed the timetable. The problem of replacing modern buses, which are expensive assets, must occupy the minds of those who are trying to run public services. There was the commendable intention in part of the 1978 Act to provide some continuity of subsidy for bus operators to enable them to plan their services. That continuity has not been provided. That part of that Act has never been satisfactorily implemented.
Bus grant is to be phased out and operators will be faced with the problem of finding money to replace their buses. Many small operators are in danger in the same respect as haulage operators of entering into competition and finding after a short while that they will no longer be able to continue. When that happens the question that arises is, "Who will pick up the mess?" If the services fail, are we to expect the county council to approach the Government to tell them, "These operators cannot run on this basis; you, the Government, must increase the money that is being provided."? This issue warrants the closest investigation.
When my hon. and learned Friend replies, in his usual efficient way, I hope that he will take my comments in the spirit in which they are intended. It is not my purpose to carp or to criticise the Government's policies. There are many unresolved questions and at the end of the day we are interested in ensuring that the customer gets the best possible service. If the best possible service is one that provides no buses in the evening and no buses on Sundays, that might suit 80 per cent. of the local population that travels on the route but it might condemn the other 20 per cent. to virtual isolation.
The answer does not lie in satisfying large percentages of local populations. We must consider the contribution that a bus service makes to the quality of life, especially in rural England. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will not be too ready to say, "I provided a new bus service between village A and village B but the public will not be able to use it for most of the week because it operates on an extremely restricted timetable." I hope that better services will flow from the experiment, but we are at an early stage. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to continue experimenting. However, if we are to subsidise, it might be better to view the overall situation. 


If we abandon cross-subsidisation we may need more and more experimental areas and more and more public money to maintain the very minimum of public transport.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I must apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate. I was conducting a party of constituents to the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, about the closure of a school and the reorganisation of schools. I was placed in a rather difficult position.
I do not wish to say very much about the order, which is very much centerd upon Hereford and Herefordshire. First, I commend the county council for its initiative in taking advantage of the offer to conduct the experiment. In my constituency there are a city service and rural services. They have been of great interest to me during the time that I have been a Member of this place and for much longer.
The complaints that I have had levelled at me by my constituents over the years are based on large, empty buses rumbling through the countryside and phenomenal expense as perceived in bus fares. I have received complaints of services being discontinued in the city when there might have been a demand. However, demand has fallen off because of the high cost. The main operator in Hereford city has said to me consistently by innuendo that unless there is more subsidy the city service will collapse. He has then added, "Where will the city be then?" There has been a steady rumbling. It is said, "Unless there is more subsidy we shall have to pull out."
If we do not conduct experiments we shall not ascertain what is possible for rural transport and urban transport. It is vital that we get the maximum possible juice out of the trial period and that we examine carefully the consequences after the expiry date. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, the experiment should be monitored as it proceeds so that the lessons can be learnt. If, as once again my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough said in his enlightened remarks, the experiment is a disaster, we shall thereby have learned that it was a disaster. However, if we find that the system adjusts itself to accommodate the different criteria that we have set for it and matches itself more accurately to the needs of those in the rural areas and in the cities, we shall have a sound foundation for breaking down some of the rigidity and nonsense within bus services.
Over the years we have placed ourselves in an almighty twist over buses. We have built a massive superstructure, massive overheads and massive rigidity. That is because we have failed to realise that circumstances that applied in 1931 no longer apply. Therefore, it is right that we should conduct the experiment. I shall be watching its progress with great interest. I hope that towards the end of the experiment we shall have an opportunity to ascertain how it has gone and the lessons to be learnt from it.

(Mr. Kenneth Clarke): As one or two hon. Members have said, in some ways the House has been unlucky in the

timing of the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) said, if the debate were to annul the order coming into effect, it should have been held earlier. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, it is too early to judge the success of the experiment. That is an opinion with which I thought the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared to agree. That was no one's fault. The usual channels were unable to arrange a debate before the recess. The prayer against the order was tabled when the new system was merely being contemplated and we are now debating it a few weeks after it has come into effect.
I understand why the Opposition felt that they had to table the prayer when they did because the introduction of the trial order in Hereford and Worcester was accompanied by a background of strong opposition from all sorts of bus operators and from two out of the four district councils affected—they were evenly balanced. No doubt the Opposition, who have always been opposed to those elements of the Transport Act 1980 that seemed likely to introduce into transport greater competition, flexibility and consumer choice, feared that there would be a disaster in this area.
The Opposition were spurred on by warnings given by various people interested in the subject which, fortunately, did not deter the Hereford and Worcester county council. The banner headline of the Hereford Evening News of 11 March 1980 says: "Cowboys will ruin buses". Mr. Roger Shutt, deputy chairman of the city of Hereford public transport committee, said:
The scrapping of licence controls under the proposed Transport Bill will create 'cowboy' and 'maverick' bus operators … the local bus system could disappear under Hereford and Worcester County Council's experiment in making Herefordshire a 'free for all' area. Cowboys and maverick operators will cotton on to the best routes while other bus services will suffer. As they cut each other's prices and put each other out of business, the buses will gradually disappear.
On 20 May 1980 a private operator, well known to those who follow the subject, Mr. Ron Whittle of the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport Association, got headlines in the Hereford Evening News saying:
Buses 'free for all' warning. Services will be lost—operator. The establishment of a free enterprise bus system in Herefordshire could lead to the demise of services on uneconomic routes, according to a leading independent bus operator. The warning was given by Mr. Ron Whittle … He told a conference in Hereford that it was the public and the rural areas in particular which would suffer as a result of the creation of a free-for-all on the buses.
Those are the fears that were voiced and that the Opposition shared when they tabled the prayer to the order. I hope that I shall persuade the House that those fears are unfounded and that so far, at this early stage, the order is proving to be something of a success.
I do not criticise the Opposition for pressing on with their debate, because there have been recent reports giving the impression that all is not well in Hereford and Worcester. The Sunday Times last Sunday contained an article by Muriel Bowen, headlined:
Bus 'freedom' scheme is hitting the services".
Miss Bowen appeared to believe that
Since the Hereford trial area came into operation in July, … there has been a reduction in bus services.
Again I am glad to tell the House that that is based on a total misunderstanding of what has happened in Hereford since the order was made. Miss Bowen was referring to


the withdrawal of Midland Red from bus services in the area because Midland Red, as a national policy, decided that it would not participate in the tendering system for stage carriage. That does not mean that the public have lost services. To be specific, on 21 September 1981, which was when Midland Red withdrew its service from the area, the X91 from Hereford to Stratford was withdrawn. Most of that route was outside the trial area. The better used part outside the area between Malvern and Stratford was replaced by a new service, the X51. The part of the service in the trial area with which we are concerned has been fully replaced by an independent, private sector operator.
On 21 September, Midland Red withdrew all services between Hereford and Ledbury, but they were replaced by the independent operator who had bid for the route. The new services operated at lower fares than those of the Midland Red. There has been no loss of service. A few evening and Sunday services have been withdrawn on those routes as the county withdrew the subsidy because of low patronage. That sort of thing has been going on steadily all over the country for some time. It was a deliberate decision by the county that they were large empty buses. New services are emerging in the trial area.
The nationalised companies—Midland Red and National Welsh—for some reason decided not to go in for the tendering process for stage carriage. They tendered for services for assisted pupils, but now they have been withdrawn from the area. Now all the services are being provided by independent stage carriage services in the trial area. Therefore, some services have changed hands and some have changed hands between independents because a new independent successfully bid for the service. Usually the same fares as before apply. Some services have changed from Midland Red to independent private operators. In those cases, so far lower fares have been the first perceived effect by the customers in that area.
Some examples of the changes in fares that have taken place so far with the changeover from a national bus company—either Midland Red or National Welsh routes—to independent private sector operators under the new arrangements have been supplied to me by the county council. I have mentioned Hereford and Ledbury. The National Bus Company charged 110p for a single journey. The fare is now 75p. A day return cost 175p and it is now 150p. Hereford to Tarrington cost 90p single, and the fare is now 50p. A day return was 145p and it is now £1. Hereford to Lugwardine was 55p single and it is now 40p. A day return was 90p and it is now 80p. Hereford to Tillington Common was 80p single and it is now 30p single. The day return fare was 130p and is now 60p. Hereford to Widemarsh Common was 20p single and is now 10p. A day return was 40p and is now 20p. Much Marcle to Ledbury was 65p single and is now 36p A day return was 105p and is now 60p.
Those changes are where the new operator is operating substantially reduced fares. I do not say that to criticise the National Bus Company fare operations, but it illustrates one of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster, and one of the points which we made repeatedly throughout our discussions on the Transport Act 1980 about rural services. There are many areas where the local operator with lower overheads and a more flexible ability to respond to service demand will often be able to provide rural services in a much more cost effective way than the large nationalised concerns.

Mr. Albert Booth: In fairness to the House, will the Minister say that the National Bus Company is operating a series of routes in that trial area? Its fares were reduced when it cut back its scheduling in order to run only over such parts of the routes as it could operate without transport supplementary grant. Therefore, it is misleading, at least, to suggest that in taking over parts of schedules from the National Bus Company new operators have brought in lower fares, because the National Bus Company reduced fares and now operates in the area without transport supplementary grant. Private operators working in the area, however, receive transport supplementary grant.

Mr. Clarke: The private operators are receiving less transport supplementary grant than the National Bus Company used to, and they have reduced the fares. There are still some national bus services operating on a non-supplementary grant basis. For some reason they decided not to bid for revenue support and take part in the tendering process. Fares have been reduced, in some cases in response to competition with independents. But the overall picture is that so far the fares have come down where there has been a transfer of rural routes from the national buses to the independents.
The first applications are coming in for new services where people have taken advantage of the de-licensing in the area. The county council will deal with these, but I understand that applications are coming in from Hemming Coachways, which wants to provide new services from Worcester to Leominster via Bromyard. Some of them will be inside the trial area. Some will be outside and require traffic commissioner approval. A company called Flash Coaches is proposing to provide additional peak hour services in the Hereford city area, particularly in the Newton Farm and College Road areas. It is proposing to introduce a new Sunday service out of Hereford to Widemarsh Common. From the customers' point of view, the present pattern is fairly satisfactory.
I stress for the last time that one is only saying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster has said, "So far, so good". I am not claiming, on the basis of three weeks' operation, that the overwhelming success of the trial area has been proved. But so far, in this limited period, there has been no loss of services, the fares are generally lower, there is less cost in subsidy to the ratepayer and the taxpayer, and new services seem to be in the offing. It is a very limited period, but I put it to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that that is a curious background against which to vote against the order and try to stop the experiment.
A great deal of credit for what has happened must go to the Hereford and Worcester county council, rather than to the Government, who brought about the change in the law. Hereford and Worcester county council has devised its own system in order to take advantage of the trial area arrangements. I readily concede to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East that the method adopted by the council is not one which was contemplated by the Ministers concerned. It is, as it were, a Hereford and Worcester one-off use of the trial area. Nevertheless, I say "Good luck" to the Hereford and Worcester county council.
During the debates on the Transport Bill, we made clear that what we were proposing in trial areas, as elsewhere, would not cut across or reduce in any way the role of


county councils in managing their transport policies. It is up to them to take advantage of what we have done and to devise their own methods in doing so.
There have been some quotations from the Official Report, and I should like to quote from what I said on the subject on Report:
Counties must realise that trial areas are not a substitute for revenue support… However, trial areas will provide counties with an opportunity to use revenue support in an intelligent, creative and better way. Trial areas will identify not only the present routes, who operates them, what are their losses and how much finance is required to keep them running—most of the present networks are a combination of history and chance—but which routes the county council, as the transport authority, considers to be fulfilling a public need but which are not being served or which might not be served if there were change to a more commercial regime. The county councils must identify the routes and the public need, and decide how to make intelligent use of their revenue support to provide the necessary services.
Later I said:
We are indicating that counties can, if they so wish, take away the restrictions on road service licensing where they can make better use of revenue support. Once the restrictions have been lifted, there will be a wider choice of operators and service. It is for the county councils to use the purse strings that are in their possession and their duties as a co-ordinating authorities to make the best use of the moneys provided."—[Official Report, 24 March 1980; Vol. 981, c. 1023–4.]
That is what the county council is doing in Hereford and Worcester, but I had not expected that this method would be adopted. The county council is using the purse strings, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has said. It is identifying the routes that it wishes to support because it perceives a social need for them. The county is inviting tenders from operators who want to provide those services. It is choosing the service that seems, in its eyes, to give its ratepayers the best value for money, and it is allowing the operators to provide services in a way that is much more matched to social need.
In our debates on the Transport Bill that general approach is certainly what we anticipated. We much prefer that approach to the idea that we can go on pouring in subsidies to the existing network provided by the existing operator, who comes along at the end of the year and says how much he thinks he is losing in the particular area of the county council and expects the council to foot the bill.

Mr. Prescott: That will happen now.

Mr. Clarke: I have understood that there are some doubts about the tendering process that has been carried out by Hereford and Worcester. I have, therefore, contacted Hereford and Worcester in order to find out exactly what have been the rules of the tendering process that the council has undertaken. The council has kindly discussed the matter with me. The council insists that there is no question of stifling competition between the operators. There is no question of taking sanctions against operators who do not co-operate.
I am told that if an operator moves on to a service which at the moment is being provided by a subsidised operator, and the new operator moves in on an unsubsidised basis, obviously the council will be wary if later that new operator wants some subsidy for his service. The council also reserves the right, on school contracts, to shop around in the way that all county councils do. Otherwise, the tendering process has been aimed at getting the operators to provide the services which the county council wants. The county council has no licensing role.

Mr. Prescott: Mr. Prescott: Oh!

Mr. Clarke: No, the county council has no licensing role. The process that has been described by the hon. Member is the one that the county council has adopted in order to decide how to use the revenue support that it proposes to give, and it has gone for the tendering process.
The county council invited tenders for 53 services. All those services are now being provided. There were competitive bids for almost all of them. In five cases, three different operators bid for a service. In the majority of cases there were two operators bidding. There are now 13 operators, including the two National Bus Company subsidiaries, because they are providing some contracts for what are described as "entitled scholars" in the area. All the services have been taken up. There has been no transport desert. There has been no falling-off of services. The system is working rather well, in the manner that I have described.
It has been said that the county has taken this action only because we bribed the county to do it. Reference has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, as well as by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East to offers of Government money for these operations. It is certainly true that—as with Norfolk—when Hereford and Worcester made the bid, which all county councils make each year, for transport supplementary grant, it put in an additional bid of £100,000 for what it feared might be the transitional cost of adopting a trial area system. The county council regarded itself as being prudent and saw this as an insurance policy against transitional cost which might emerge in going from the old system to the new. In our opinion, the county council was being very prudent. But when one looks at the almost hysterical campaigning which was taking place against the whole idea of a trial area, it is hardly surprising that the county should have wanted to have some insurance policy behind it.
The Secretary of State took those additional bids into account in awarding transport supplementary grant to the council. But so far, as again the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said, the county has found that it has not been necessary to use the additional money, or certainly not all of it, although the officials have put forward caveats to the effect that if there is a need to revise contracts after a short time, the council may need to draw on a larger part of that sum than has so far proved to be necessary. If the county does not draw on it, it will be in the happy position of having money available which it will be able to use in looking round for ways in which to indentify other worthwhile services. It will be able to repeat the process and develop an independent lower cost network throughout its rural areas, in that way improving its public transport system. Benefits could, therefore, flow to the area if the system continued to be a success.
It would seem, therefore, to be foolish to reject the order tonight. I hope that the trial area will be allowed to continue, in the hope that it will be as successful in the future as it has been so far. All the dafter arguments that have been used about trial areas are plainly wrong. A transport desert has not opened up in Hereford and Worcester. The first experiences there have been entirely favourable from the point of view of the county and the customers.
If the scheme remains successful it will continue for a minimum of two years, but it will not end in two years;


it will go on indefinitely. The trial area is terminable. It is possible for the county council to approach the Secretary of State after two years and ask him to terminate it, but it will be terminated only if the county council makes that approach and if the Secretary of State agrees. We shall not terminate a trial area unless it turns out that the whole experiment is going wrong. I hope that the Hereford and Worcester trial area will prove to be a continuing success and will be initiated elsewhere.
Norfolk has been cited. Nobody has prayed against that order because nothing dramatic has happened there. The trial area has been declared, the traffic commissioners' control has been ended, the services are running and nobody has found anything left to make a fuss about. If anything, Norfolk has probably been a little too restrictive in the area that it has derestricted. It might, with hindsight have been a little more ambitious. Certainly, this has done no harm in Norfolk. I hope that other parts of the country will look at the experience of those two counties and will now put forward their own poposals.
The whole concept of trial areas was based upon the Government's belief that in significant areas of the country the whole paraphernalia of the traffic commissioner system would turn out to be serving no worthwhile purpose. It was there because it was there, and removing it might give county councils more opportunity to develop services in a way that would match modern public demands. We should certainly like to see more trial areas as the fears about them seem so far to be utterly groundless.
In conclusion, the narrow subject of trial areas by no means covers the whole problem of rural transport. It was never claimed to be the answer to rural transport problems I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that it certainly is not. Indeed, the concept of trial areas is not particularly aimed at rural areas alone. We are awaiting the first application from an urban area. I personally am sure that a useful trial could be carried out in a non-rural setting to see whether the present licensing restrictions really do much good in some of our medium sized towns and even in our cities.
The scheme in Hereford and Worcester is just one experiment. The answer for rural areas lies in experiments and innovation of all kinds. We want low-cost, independent operators with a rural base to emerge on to the scene. We want more community buses. We want more use of post buses, which are extensively used in Scotland. Car-sharing has a continuing and growing role to play in rural areas. There is room for more facilities to be shared with the services provided by social service and education departments. A great deal of additional thought and effort is needed on the whole problem of rural transport. The Government intend to give all this very high priority. In rural areas, as elsewhere, there is great need and much room for innovation, for new ideas, experiments and competition, for new operators and a more flexible range of services.
I believe that the Hereford and Worcester trial area has every prospect of opening the way for all those things, to the great benefit of people living in that part of the country. I therefore hope that the House will support the order and reject the prayer if, in the light of three weeks' experience, the Opposition insist upon voting against something which appears to be heading for modest but reasonable success.

Mr. Prescott: Clearly, there is a broad philosophical difference between the two sides in their approach to transport matters. This was aired in the opening speeches and in some cases throughout the debate and I shall not reiterate the arguments.
Our basic contention has been that the second order for a trial area does not reflect the principle envisaged by the Minister. Indeed, his colleagues have made that point. We believe that a new principle is being enunciated, giving the county the right to control, through the licence of the purse strings, in a far more restrictive way than that in which road service licensing is at present conducted by the commissioners.
The Minister said nothing about rights of appeal in this matter. Parliament has always been prepared to provide for appeals in public interest matters, but that does not apply to the county councils.
I shall not reiterate the arguments. We believe that the free enterprise, all-competing concept has put the fear of life into these areas. They are therefore making sure that it does not apply by introducing restrictions and controls. If so, the Minister must face the argument that one has to subsidise bus services in order to maintain a total network. If that is the position, the House should decide the matter on that basis rather than support an order which clearly does not face up to the free enterprise concept, but is simply another system of controls and restrictions maintained by the taxpayer.
The Minister says that we may have to wait for two years or so to see what happens. We believe that at the end of that time the consumer and the operator will be worse off and the taxpayer will be paying considerably more. The reason why we shall vote tonight, however, is to make our position on this matter absolutely clear. We did not have the chance to do so during the passage of the Act because it did not envisage this way of operating a trial area. As the Minister said that he is considering extending it to other areas on these terms, the Opposition must make it absolutely clear that they oppose the principle embodied in the order.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 179.

Division No. 308] [7.05 pm

AYES


Allaun, Frank
Douglas-Mann, Bruce



Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dunnett, Jack


Ashton, Joe
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)
Eadie, Alex


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)


Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)
English, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n &amp; P)
Evans, John (Newton) 


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) 


Carmichael, Neil
Ford, Ben


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)
Foster, Derek


Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.
Foulkes, George


Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, M'hill)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cryer, Bob
George, Bruce


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)
Graham, Ted


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)
Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Hardy, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Dixon, Donald
Hart, Fit Hon Dame Judith


Dormand, Jack
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Douglas, Dick
Home Robertson, John




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton West)


Alton, David
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ancram, Michael
Cartwright, John


Arnold Tom
Churchchill, W.S.


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)


Atkins, Robert (Preston N)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)



Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Cockeram, Eric


Banks, Robert
Colvin, Michael


Beith, A. J.
Cope, John


Bell, Sir Ronald
Cormack, Patrick


Bendall, Vivian
Cranborne, Viscount


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Crouch, David



Benyon, Thomas (A'don)
Dean, Paul (North Somerset)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Dorrell, Stephen


Blackburn, John
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dover, Denshore


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dunn, James A.


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eggar, Tim


Brinton, Tim
Fairgrieve, Sir Russell


Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon
Faith, Mrs Sheila


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Brown, Michael(Brigg &amp;W Sc'n)
Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)


Budgen, Nick
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles


Bulmer, Esmond
Fookes, Miss Janet


Burden, Sir Frederick
Fox, Marcus


Butcher, John
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)


Cadbury, Jocelyn
Freud, Clement


Question accordingly negatived

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)
Prescott, John


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Radice, Giles


Kerr, Russell
Robertson, George


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Leadbitter, Ted
Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)


Leighton, Ronald
Sever, John


Lestor, Miss Joan

Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spriggs, Leslie


McCartney, Hugh
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Stoddart, David


McElhone, Frank
Stott, Roger


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


McKelvey, William
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)


McNamara, Kevin
Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)


McTaggart, Robert
Welsh, Michael


McWilliam, John
White, J. (G'gow Pollok)


Marks, Kenneth
Whitlock, William


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Maxton, John
Winnick, David


Milian, Rt Hon Bruce
Woodall, Alec


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Woolmer, Kenneth


Morton, George
Wright, Sheila


O'Neill, Martin



Palmer, Arthur
Tellers for the Ayes:


Park, George
Mr. Donald Coleman and


Parker, John
Mr. Frank Haynes.


Parry, Robert

Fry, Peter
Normanton, Tom


Garle-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Cranley


Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John


Goodlad, Alastair
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Gray, Hamish
Page, Richard (SW Herts)


Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Grist, Ian
Pawsey, James


Grylls, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Haselhurst Alan
Pollock, Alexander


Hawksley, warren
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Henderson, Barry
Proctor, K. Harvey


Holland, Phillip (Carlton)
Raison, Timothy


Hooson, Tom
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Renton, Tim


Howells, Geraint

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Roper, John


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wright)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rossi, Hugh


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Kaberry, Sir Donald
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Speller, Tony 


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Lee, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Stainton, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Loveridge, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lyell, Nicholas
Stokes, John


McCrindle, Robert
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Macfarlane, Neil
Temple-Morris, Peter


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


McQuarrie, Albert
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Major, John
Thompson, Donald


Marland, Paul
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Marlow, Antony
Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tripper, David


Mather, Carol
Van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus
Viggers, Peter


Mawby, Ray
Waddington, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Walker, B. (Perth)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waller, Gary


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Warren, Kenneth


Moate, Roger
Watson, John


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Montgomery, Fergus
Wells, Bowen


Morgan, Geraint
Wheeler, John


Morris, M. (N' hampton S)
Wickenden, Keith



Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Williams, D. (Montgomery)


Murphy, Christopher
Wolfson, Mark


Myles, David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Neale, Gerrard



Needham, Richard
Tellers for the Noes:


Nelson, Anthony
Mr. Peter Brooke and 


Neubert, Michael
Mr. Selwyn Gummer.


Newton, Tony

Education (Scotland)

Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I beg to move,
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the approval by the Secretary of State for Scotland, dated 8 April 1981, of the Lothian Regional Council's Transfer Scheme 1980, dated 9 December 1980, a copy of which scheme was laid before this House on 30 June, be revoked.
Our opposition to the Lothian region's transfer scheme centers on the amendments which the Secretary of State is seeking to impose on that region. We believe that those amendments, which serve to undermine the Lothian region scheme, are simply part of the right hon. Gentleman's petty vendetta against Lothian region because of the disagreements he has had in recent years over the level of provision which, with democratic approval, the region has decided to make available to the people in the area.
The scheme, as amended by the Secretary of State, is designed to fall in line with the Education (Scotland) Bill which was given approval this afternoon. However, the right hon. Gentleman first started in August last year to enforce his views on the Lothian region. At that time, he wrote to the region requesting a scheme along the lines anticipated in the new legislation. I say "anticipated", because at that time the Education (Scotland) Bill had not even been published.
In August 1980, six weeks were given for the scheme to be presented to the Secretary of State. At that time, the Lothian region said that the six-week period was insufficient as it wished to consult the region's schools councils. The right hon. Gentleman agreed to an extension until December so that those consultations could be carried out.
The consultations were far-reaching and involved a variety of groups, because the schools council organisation in Lothian region is based on a secondary school with feeder primaries. As a result, there are many of these bodies, and all of them replied.
The burden of those replies was that the existing provision for the transfer of pupils and parental appeal was, by and large, satisfactory, although there were several areas where it was felt there could be greater flexibility. The region took these pretty mild criticisms on board, and the scheme presented to the Secretary of State embodied the views of the schools councils following their acceptance by the Lothian regional council.
The Secretary of State's reaction was to put an advertisement in the local press requesting individual responses to the scheme. Any test of public opinion based on a self-selective sample is bound to be suspect. In this instance, the Secretary of State used it as the basis for his opposition to the Lothian scheme and suggested that there was a need for even greater flexibility.
At this stage, it is worth while pointing out some of the criteria on which the Lothian scheme was to be operated. First, all the secondary schools were examined and the level of staffing to be allocated for the forthcoming session was anticipated and related to the number of pupils in the first year of secondary school. The maximum class size was set at 33, with exceptions if limitations were imposed by the size of classrooms, the internal organisation or staffing in certain practical subjects, down to a minimum

of 30. Account was also taken of the fact that there would be remedial classes, some of which would be half the size of normal classes
In addition, account was taken—this is important—of the planned removal of some of the older buildings and transportable units. Accommodation, therefore, was one of Lothian region's first considerations. Over many years it has endeavoured to improve the quality of accommodation and to take advantage of the reduction in school numbers wherever possible.
The council then looked at the grounds for refusing its request. The minutes of the education committee state:
The amendments to the scheme stipulated by the Secretary of State require that requests shall normally be granted if there is accommodation in the secondary school desired by the parent.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State's diktat did not in any way measure up to the criteria that Lothian had laid down for accommodation. Lothian took account of the provisions under what was then the Education (Scotland) (No. 2) Bill. It is still uncertain and unhappy about the provisions made for accommodation. It feels that its ambitions for the children for whom it is responsible are higher than the Minister's.
Lothian region also laid down priority criteria for admission. It is worth putting them on the record. The aim was:
to afford the opportunity to children in primary 7 moving to secondary year 1.
The priority criteria were:
certificated medical reasons including ease of access in the case of disabled pupils; brother/sister already in attendance at the school requested; pupil requesting a specific educational course not available in the local school; behavioural problems related to the individual pupil or his/her siblings; nature of the parents' employment where child could become subject to stress at the local school; place of employment of parents or other domestic reason resulting in the pupil being cared for near to non-district school; parental affinity with the aims, philosophy and religious beliefs of the school; road safety; attendance of pupil at a non-district primary school feeder; ease of travel; parents of siblings attended school; relatives of other siblings attending school.
The priority criteria were clearly spelt out and were included in the minutes of the education committee meeting. They were fairly comprehensible for anyone who wanted to take the trouble to find out what they were.
That was not the action of an authority that should be singled out for action, as Lothian has been. The Minister has not taken any other local authority to task and, as far as I know, has certainly laid no other such measure before the House. I am interested to know whether he has in fact seen fit to bring any other measure before the House.
On Second Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill, we discussed the comparative statistics of the four Labour local authorities, which showed that about 97 per cent. of all placements were accepted without appeal. Only about 3 per cent. of parents were not satisfied with the choice of school presented by the local authority. The reason for the Secretary of State's desire to whip Lothian into line can only be assumed to be part of his vendetta against Lothian region in recent months.
It was requested that the proposed amendments be given full and proper consideration, but we are confident that the provisions made by Lothian region met the criteria. Statistics provided by the region show that in the first instance a request is made to the director and is then handled administratively. An appeal is then made to the first transfer committee, then to a second transfer committee, to a third and in some cases a fourth and fifth transfer committee. The appeals have been moderately


successful and, in many cases, once the individuals concerned had been given a hearing by the education committee, they were happy to accede to the demands. I understand that only 20 parents kept their children away from school for any length of time and, of those, 10 were involved in the famous Leith academy court case. There were only 10 other instances where parents were forced to take extreme action and to withdraw their children from school.
The availability of a variety of appeals, the use by parents of the ultimate illegal sanction in a small number of cases and the general level of appeal against a transfer offer suggest that Lothian region is no worse or no better than any other region. In fact, it can be argued that Lothian region has a more clear and specific programme than most other Scottish authorities.
In Committee on the Education (Scotland) Bill it was stated that other local authorities had used the schools councils in a slightly different way. That is because of the nature of the organisation of the schools councils. For example, in Strathclyde a group of secondary schools have joined together and the schools council covers several schools rather than simply one secondary with feeder primaries. It is almost academic to consider which of the two schemes is more desirable. The Secretary of State did not interfere in the scheme that Strathclyde offered. He may have been happy with it. If so, perhaps he should have suggested that Lothian adopt the Strathclyde model instead of choosing a scheme closely tied to what was anticipated as the new format in the Education (Scotland) Bill.
As I said, the Minister has tried to dictate to Lothian before Parliament reached a decision. Since the middle of April a scheme not dissimilar to that in the new legislation has operated in the Lothian region. Lothian—I agree grudgingly—accepted the diktat of the Secretary of State and operated the scheme as it was required to do. However, the Labour-controlled local authority approached the Opposition to have the matter considered by Parliament, as it is entitled to do under the 1980 Act. A local authority should have the right to determine its admission criteria, albeit against the background of legislation. The previous Government talked of parents' charters, so the anxiety of parents to have the right to question local authority decisions is not an exclusive preserve of this Government.
Greater credence must be given in the development of a comprehensive system of education to the concept of the neighbourhood comprehensive. I have rarely heard the Minister mention the concept with great enthusiasm. He is reported in The Scotsman as wanting to close neighbourhood comprehensives in Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Lothian has gone out of its way to improve school accommodation and the quality of education generally, and should have been supported in bolstering the neighbourhood comprehensive. Instead, it has been criticised and challenged at every turn. In this instance the Minister seeks to force it into a corner by using the 1980 Act in anticipation of the legislation completed this afternoon. No other local authority has been subject to that tactic. It is yet another example of the Secretary of State having a go at Lothian. It is utterly unreasonable.
Lothian has gone out of its way to provide a sensible and coherent system, albeit different from other local

authorities. However, one attraction of local government is local choice, which should be available to local politicians just as much as to parents. In Lothian region the majority of parents are satisfied with the education and choices available. They may not continue to be satisfied when criteria as vague and unspecific as those applied by the Secretary of State come into effect and difficulties arise with schools that were undergoing programmes of renewal and development.
Some schools may find that pupils are taken away not for education reasons but because of ill-informed parental prejudices. There are schools in Edinburgh—I have taught at some schools—that have reputations that are long undeserved. A snobbishness prevails in Edinburgh. Parents may not be able to send their children to fee-paying schools, which they consider desirable, because they cannot pay for them or because their children may not be acceptable to schools under the assisted places scheme. They will try to ensure that they are not sent to balanced community schools.
Lothian region wishes to develop the neighbourhood comprehensive to make sure that the accommodation is viable and financial provision is sufficient to attract the most able and committed staff. Over the years the Secretary of State has criticised Lothian for alleged overspending, but much of its spending is on education. Lothian has been one of the biggest spenders on education. It has put tremendous efforts into improving the system, which had been allowed to decay until the early 1970s under successive Tory councils on the old Edinburgh corporation. The Minister is trying to turn the clock back and prevent education provision from going from strength to strength.
We oppose the measure. It interferes with the rights of local authorities and is yet another example of the Government's vendetta against Lothian region since they came to power in May 1979.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: It is extraordinary that we should be asked to go through the full palaver of having the measure brought in by the Government when we all know that the parent legislation under which the transfer scheme was prepared and the measure is brought in is swept aside by the Education (Scotland) Bill, which completed all its stages only this evening. Two hours after we completed the last stages of that legislation we are considering a measure that arises out of the repeal of a section of that earlier Act. That is an extraordinary procedure for the Government to ask us to go through. There needs to be extraordinary justification of why at this last gasp, in the dying days of the earlier legislation, the Government take this exceptional action against Lothian region.
Why Lothian region? As my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) said, the region believes that its transfer scheme is more sophisticated than others it could name. Comparisons are invidious and I shall not attempt to make them, but to put it no more indelicately than this—other transfer schemes are shorter. Why single out Lothian as the sole education authority in Scotland to receive the treatment? Has the Minister studied the other nine education authority schemes and concluded that they are acceptable but that in Lothian there is a need to intervene? If so, perhaps he can tell the House how many instances there are in Lothian


where parents' wishes have been overridden by the local authority. How does the number compare as a proportion of the total transfer from primary to secondary with the number of disgruntled parents in other education authorities? Unless he can demonstrate that there is a greater problem in Lothian than in the other education authorities, he cannot in all conscience bring the measure before the House and ask us to take this unique step.
We should apply another criterion, which I hope the Minister will satisfy in his response. He indicated his intention to bring in the amendment in a letter to the Lothian regional council dated 8 April, in which he states:
From the response to those consultations and advertisements, the Secretary of State is satisfied that there is a substantial body of opinion, particularly relating to Edinburgh schools, which favours a more flexible approach".
That is a response to advertisements inserted in the local press by the Scottish Office. Will the Under-Secretary of State say what response was received? How many replies were received? To how many children did they refer? What analysis was made of the response? It is not good enough to claim in a letter that the response to advertisements indicates a substantial body of opinion when the Government have not been prepared to divulge to Lothian region or to Parliament exactly what was the response received and how much substantial opinion the response revealed.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will pay attention to the questions that I am putting. The House is entitled to expect an answer before hon. Members come to take a view on the order.

Mr. David Lambie: He did not answer last night.

Mr. Cook: I am aware of that. I was present for that debate. One can only live in hope of an answer. One is nevertheless entitled to request an audience of the Under-Secretary of State so that he is at least aware of the questions being asked before deciding whether to answer them.
Why has the Under-Secretary chosen this particular form of change? He will be aware of what he has done. He has brought forward a paragraph that is wholly contradictory. It would be a courtesy to the House if the Under-Secretary were to pay attention. This does not promise to be a long debate. If the Under-Secretary of State chooses to have a long debate, it can stretch over the next four hours. Since, however, it is likely to be a brief debate with few interventions, the Under-Secretary of State could try and pay attention instead of gossiping with the Secretary of State on the Front Bench. Neither of them, of course, can be sure how long he will remain in office. They may feel that they have to make use of such time as they still have together on the Front Bench.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: Come off it.

Mr. Cook: I will not come off it. The Under-Secretary of State chattered throughout the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire and has chattered to the Secretary of State ever since he entered the Chamber.

Mr. Fletcher: Nonsense.

Mr. Cook: It is not nonsense. The Under-Secretary of State has spoken to the Secretary of State more often than either my hon. Friend or I have spoken in the debate.

Mr. Fletcher: I shall listen patiently to any point of substance that the hon. Gentleman makes.

Mr. Cook: I have already put two questions in detail to which I shall expect a response. I am now about to put a third point and hope to get the hon. Gentleman's attention. The third question relates to the amendment that he has proposed. The amendment is wholly contradictory. The amendment says that each particular case
shall be given full and proper consideration taking account of the particular and individual circumstances
relating to the request. The amendment goes on to say that it
shall normally be granted if there is accommodation in the secondary school".
It eludes me how the local authority can give proper and full consideration in the circumstances of the case if it is assumed from the start that it shall normally be granted if the accommodation is available. If it should normally be granted if the accommodation is available, why is there need for the proviso that it should be given full and proper consideration with regard to particular circumstances? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), in an intervention from a sedentary position, says that it was not being given. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire has spelt out the procedures that were available under the transfer scheme and the procedures for the committee to give consideration to the circumstances of each individual case.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South may not have read the measure before the House. Its effect if the amendment is carried is to remove from a local authority any individual discretion that it can use in bringing to the case full and proper consideration. Whatever the particular circumstances of the case, it shall normally be granted. The Under-Secretary of State says "Hear, hear". In that case, I hope that he can be persuaded to withdraw his proposal and strike out from his amendment the reference to giving full and proper consideration, taking into account the particular individual circumstances. It is obvious from the hon. Gentleman's intervention that this is humbug. It is hypocrisy to pretend that he expects each case to be given particular and individual attention and full and proper consideration. He expects that it shall normally be granted subject to the solitary test relating to whether accommodation is available. This means that there will not be the ability to resist a case nor the right to give consideration to whether a transfer meets the need of the child and whether a child has a particular need.
Parents often request a transfer on the basis of curricula and subjects that may be available at a school to which they seek transfer. The local authority will no longer have the right to give consideration to whether that subject and facility are available at the school to which the parent seeks a transfer. It is not a matter that is relevant under the amended provision of the transfer scheme. It will not be possible to give consideration to the distance that a child has to cover. A local authority could be faced with a request for a transfer from one end of Lothian to the other. Under this amended transfer scheme it would not be competent to have regard to that factor in deciding whether to approve a transfer.
A child may require a special educational facility. It will not be competent for the local authority to have regard to that factor. The only factor to which it may have regard is whether there is available accommodation at the school. 


If that test is met, the transfer should normally be granted. The ground to which a local authority may have regard under the amended scheme is even more narrow than the grounds provided by the Government in the Education (Scotland) Bill. The Bill provides a whole page of considerations to which the local authority may have regard in deciding whether to approve a transfer. None is to be available to the Lothian region except the single test whether accommodation is available.
There are practical administrative problems about obliging a local authority to accept pupils at any secondary school up to the limits. We are debating this scheme some months after it has taken effect. We can judge from what is happening in Lothian the effect of the scheme. I do not speak from a sense of grievance. I do not represent any schools from which pupils are being transferred. I represent two schools to which pupils are being transferred. One of my schools is full. Pupils have been transferred from the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). I do not wish to draw any political conclusion from the fact that education within my constituency is preferred to education within the constituency of the hon. Member for Pentlands. A problem, however, arises. In each class in the school there is the maximum number of pupils due to the large number coming from outside the zone.
A recently arrived constituent has sought to enrol his child at the secondary school. It is not possible for the secondary school to accept the boy because the school is full. If the boy is admitted the science class will number 21 rather than 20 pupils. The conditions of service for the employment of teachers is that no science teacher should be required to teach more than 20 pupils. If the pupil were admitted, an additional science teacher would have to be employed at the school or the pupil would have to go back to Wester Hailes. The Minister shakes his head. We shall look forward to his response. If the Minister has a solution to the problem, Lothian region will be delighted to hear it. At present it is unable to accept the pupil for the local community secondary school although that pupil wishes to enrol. This is a direct result of the measure that allows for no discretion at an earlier point in the year to resist any application for the school so long as available accommodation exists within the school.
It is an idiotic situation that, as a result of the scheme, there are pupils in my constituency who are unable to enrol in the local secondary school. That consequence of the order should itself be a sufficient ground on which to resist it.
However, there are also general principles. The Lothian regional education authority has taken substantial steps and gone much further than any other education authority in seeking to integrate the transfer from a primary school to a secondary school. It has promoted regular contact between teachers at primary and secondary schools and, through those contacts, to harmonise the curricula at primary and secondary level. It has also ensured that information about pupils who are to transfer is passed from primary schools to secondary schools.
That intimate relationship between primary and secondary schools will be wrecked if the Government ensure that pupils from any primary school can transfer to

any secondary school without the local authority being able to impose any restriction on the secondary school to which a pupil may transfer.
It is impossible not to have regard once again to the fact that the Government obtained power on the wholly bogus platform that they would create more freedom and achieve less Government interference in the dealings of local government, business and individuals. We have seen in the past two and a half years the most comprehensive programme of meddling and interference in local authority affairs that the nation has witnessed in peacetime.
The Under-Secretary interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire to suggest that he was arguing the case that politicians know best. That gibe comes ill from the Minister's lips, because he has imposed his own view of what is best on a local authority that was elected to administer educational policy within its region. The Under-Secretary is saying, in effect, that he knows best how every transfer from primary school to secondary school should take place. That demonstrates a self-satisfaction with his own judgment that borders on megalomania.
We have seen in the past two years a number of major nails driven into the coffin of local democracy. Perhaps we have seen so many that it may be thought that it is almost pointless to complain about this further drawing pin being inserted in the coffin lid. But we have seen so many steps taken to erode local discretion and autonomy that we cannot allow even this further step to take place without making a protest.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), because his concluding remarks summarised the philosophical gulf that divides the two sides of the House on education and parental choice.
The hon. member did not serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Education (Scotland) Bill, but that does not matter. He is also a victim of the prejudice that runs throughout the Labour Party, with one exception. I referred earlier today to the Scottish Labour Member who takes a more enlightened view.
Before dealing with the details of the order, I should tell the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that it is not a question of my knowing best or of Lothian region's knowing best. I firmaly believe that parents know best. The hon. Gentleman said that he was worried about the administration of schools and about the position of teachers and Lothian councillors, but it never seemed to enter his mind that parental choice matters above all else and that the education system is the servant of the parent and the child.
The Government believe that the best thing that we can do for education in Lothian and elsewhere in Scotland is to make sure that the maximum parental choice is available. We accept that parents will make mistakes and send their children to schools which, in the view of educationists, may not be the best schools for them, but it is far better that the occasional parent should make a mistake and be free to do so than that Lothian and other areas should have a conscript system of education. That is what the Labour Party is calling for. It wants conscript education, or "You will go to that school and like


it"—whether the child likes it or not. That is the basic philosophical difference between the two sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) accused the Government of waging a petty vendetta against the Lothian regional council and the eduation authority. I assure him that it gave us no pleasure to have to bring forward the measure. We tried patiently to persuade the region to pay far more attention to what parents want and say instead of reorganising education to suit its own administrative convenience and political prejudices, which is precisely what Lothian has been doing for some years.
It may be helpful if I outline the background under the present law. All education authorities maintain what are known as transfer schemes. Section 29 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 provides that, if so required by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, they must submit any such schemes for his approval under section 69 of that Act. Transfer schemes relate only to the transfer of pupils from primary to secondary education and the schemes currently operated by authorities are those approved in 1976 by the then Secretary of State.
The operation of the provisions of Lothian regional council's 1976 transfer scheme, enshrining its policy for dealing with out-of-zone requests—a policy which I have already suggested can only be described as negative, unnecessarily restrictive and irrelevant, especially at a time of falling rolls—has been the source of bitter complaint from parents and it was this that prompted the Government ultimately to ask the regional council to revise its scheme.
I am surprised that Edinburgh Labour Members do not know from their mailbags how dissatisfied many Edinburgh parents have been for some years.

Mr. Cook: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Mr. Fletcher: I should like to proceed a little further.
The terms of the council's 1976 scheme for dealing with parental requests for a particular school are explicit. The scheme says:
Requests by parents or guardians for placement in a school other than that designated will be considered but are unlikely to be granted except in special circumstances such as where brothers or sisters will be in attendance at the school requested when the pupil transfers, or where the Director of Education recommends to the Transfer Committee a particular placement on the grounds that the transfer under normal arrangements would be contrary to the educational or other interests of the child".
I need hardly remind certain Labour Members of the large number of parents who have fallen victim of that policy and the deep sense of injustice felt by some parents at the consideration given by the Lothian transfer committee to their requests. That has resulted in children being withheld from school, attendance orders being served and parents ending up in the sheriff court to argue their case.

Mr. Cook: How many?

Mr. Fletcher: A more flexible approach by the council would have spared unnecessary damaging effects on the child's education in most of these cases.

Mr. Cook: How many?

Mr. Fletcher: A sufficient number of cases have caused distress. I shall quote some figures in a moment. 

There are existing cases in Lothian region of parents still withholding their children because they are not getting satisfaction.

Mr. John Maxton: How many?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) calls, like a parrot, "How many?". I should have thought that he would be concerned if only one child were being were being withheld from school because Lothian or any other region was not dealing properly with a transfer request.
What some authorities appear to forget is that parents, too, have statutory duties in relation to the education of their children: section 30 of the 1980 Act places a clear responsibility on parents to provide for their children efficient education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude. Education authorities themselves also have a statutory duty, in terms of section 28(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act, to have regard to the general principle that pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents, not in accordance with administrative convenience so far as this is compatible with the provision of suitable instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable public expenditure.
These are straightforward commitments in existing legislation and I am bound to say, with deep regret, that for too many years now they have been ignored by the Lothian regional council when considering parental requests. That is the position under the law as it stands today.

Mr. Cook: The Minister asked about the mailbags of Members of Parliament. During my seven years as a Member of Parliament I have not had one complaint from a constituent regarding the transfer from primary to secondary school. I ask the Minister again two questions that I put in my speech. First, what response did he receive to the advertisements, and how did he come to the conclusion that they revealed a substantial body of opinion? Second, what comparative figures does he have for the difference between the number of disaffected parents in the Lothian region and any other education authority against which this action is not being taken?

Mr. Fletcher: I shall come to those matters in a few moments. In answer to what the hon. Gentleman says about the absence of complaints from his constituents about the transfer scheme in the Lothian region, I am not surprised, judging by the speech that he made this evening, which showed no concern whatever for parental choice. I take it from what he said that his constituents would get the same short shrift from him as they receive from the regional council itself.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that many of my constituents have complained vigorously, and some of them live not far from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook), who is one of my constituents? Is the Minister aware that there is strong support for this measure?

Mr. Fletcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is not surprising that constituents write to Members of Parliament who they think will give them a sympathetic ear. There is not much point, clearly, in writing to Members who are wholly opposed to the wishes that the constituents are expressing. 


I had hoped that, given the Government's policy to extend parental choice of school, the regional council would be open to persuasion and that the use of statutory powers available to my right hon. Friend to bring about more flexibility could be avoided. With this in mind, and on my instructions, my department wrote to the council on 3 March 1980, indicating that its policy was considered to be unduly restrictive and expressing the hope that in dealing with parental requests it would in future have regard to the principles set out in my consultative paper "Admission to School—A Charter for Parents"—the consultative paper which was issued in March 1980 as part of the process of formulating the Bill which we have been considering earlier this evening. It was in my view a reasonable request to which a reasonable authority would have responded positively.
Our hope, of course, was disappointed. The council took the line that in its view the number of requests was so small against the number of pupils in the relevant age group that no further action on its part was required. On the region's interpretation of the figures, between 98 and 99 per cent. of parents received the school of their choice, and the situation was therefore satisfactory. I dispute categorically that there is any relevance in this comparison. In my view, it is beyond doubt that parents in the region are discouraged from making requests regarding choice of school because of the council's intransigent attitude.
The view that parents are discouraged from applying would be consistent with the fall in the number of requests received by the region. It was 4.5 per cent. of all pupils entering primary education in 1977, and it fell to 3.4 per cent. in 1979.—[Interruption.] I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that entry into primary schools is any less important as a matter of parental choice than the entry from primary into secondary schools. Opposition Members have asked for figures, and I have said that I would provide them. If those figures are not acceptable to them, that does not mean that they are irrelevant. Opposition Members may not like them, but it does not make them irrelevant.
Similarly, in relation to transfers from primary to secondary education, the number of requests fell from 5 per cent. in 1977 to 4 per cent. in 1979. What I find most disturbing is that, despite the decline in the proportion who asked, the percentage of applicants whose requests were refused increased over the same period. At primary level it rose from 22.5 per cent. in 1977 to 28 per cent. in 1979 and in transfers from primary to secondary comparable figures show an increase from 26.4 per cent in 1977 to 28 per cent. in 1979. Hon. Members will see, therefore, that even the figures which the regional council produces in its own defence give disturbing evidence of an unnecessarily restrictive policy. As a result, my officials wrote again on my instruction on 17 April 1980 to say that the evidence supplied by the council justified repeating my request that in dealing with parental requests it should have regard to the principles underlying the Government's proposals for more parental choice. I regret to say that the council resolved to take no action.
My conclusion was, therefore, that in order to assist parents in Lothian who wanted more choice, I had no option but to ask my right hon. Friend to exercise his

power under section 29 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to require the authority to submit a revised transfer scheme by no later than 31 October 1980.
This request was made in a letter dated 7 August 1980, which stressed the Secretary of State's expectation that the scheme would be revised to the effect that all requests for out-of-zone admissions would normally be granted. The letter also asked that where refusal was necessary the reasons for this should be explained in writing to the parents. The Lothian council had been extremely remiss in not having the courtesy to explain properly to parents why their requests had been refused.
The regional council subsequently asked for the deadline for submission of the revised scheme to be extended to 12 December 1980, to allow consultations to take place, and this was granted. I make this point simply to illustrate that we started in March 1980 and showed much patience with the local authority, hoping that in considering the matter with us, it would relax its rather stiff view of parents and granting parental requests. It was quite evident, however, that the consultations which the council had been anxious to carry out were conducted through the medium of school councils only.
School council membership, of course, includes parental representatives, but my experience of school closure and other applications seeking approval to changes in educational provision has been that the views of school councils, while valuable in themselves, do not necessarily always accord with those expressed by parents. My opinion was therefore that the consultations undertaken by the council were not as extensive or thorough as I would have liked. Both in order to give parents a chance to make direct representations and to satisfy the Secretary of State's statutory responsibility, advertisements were placed in the Edinburgh Evening News on 6 and 7 January this year inviting comments on the scheme and in particular on the revised statement of the council's policy relating to the consideration of requests for out-of-zone transfer to secondary schools. The regional council was asked at the same time to supply detailed information about its consultative process.
The results were very revealing. Of the bodies consulted by the regional council in its deliberations, 16 of the 25 representing schools in the Edinburgh area wanted a change in policy. Those were the consultations of the council. In addition, the response to the press advertisement placed by my Department was considerable. One hundred and sixty-eight letters, together with a petition containing 341 signatures, were received, and of these only 17 parents were content with the council's policy for considering parental requests. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central raised this matter, and I say to him in all sincerity that surely there can be no surer measure of evidence of the unpopularity of the council's transfer scheme or greater motive for arrangements to give parents a greater say in the school their child attends. I am sure that any experience that the hon. Member has had of asking people to send in their views by mail would be the same as that of other people.
It is rather unusual for 168 people, quite separately and completely unorganised in any political or other way, to write individual letters. There was only one petition. The Department inserted the advertisements and waited for the response. That was the response that came in. It was absolutely a duty on my right hon. Friend and myself,


therefore, to take account of this and to continue to try to persuade Lothian regional council to recognise the fault of its ways.

Mr. O'Neill: How many of the signatories were parents,? How many of the signatories, if they were parents were involved in the transfer scheme at that time? Does the Minister agree that a figure of 492, even assuming that they were parents, is not that far from the number of disgruntled parents who apply every year for an appeal? The figure has run between 3 per cent. and 4 per cent. of the 10,000 to 12,000 children who are being transferred at any time. These figures are worthless. That they have been presented in this way is intellectually insulting to the House.

Mr. Fletcher: From experience in Committee, I know that the hon. Gentleman does not think much of minority views. The fact remains, however, that although this may not impress the hon. Gentleman, it had some impact on Lothian regional council when it began to consider what it might do.
It is important that hon. Members should consider the position that was reached at this point. To begin with, Lothian's response to my request for a more flexible policy in relation to parental requests was to say, without prior consultation with parents or anybody else, that its statistics showed that most parents got their choice of school and, therefore, no change in its policy was needed. That was the response before consultation took place. I think that I have made it quite clear why I consider that that interpretation of the council's statistics was widely inaccurate and unrepresentative of true parental feeling in the area.
Now we are at the point where the council, by force of law, undertakes consultations which lead it to revise its scheme to take account of
opinion expressed by the majority of the interests consulted.
The council's shift of ground was remarkable. From a position where it considered statistical evidence to justify no change, it had moved to the point of acknowledging that its own consultations showed that some change in its policy was called for.
The wording of the council's revised scheme, as submitted to my right hon. Friend was still, however, in too negative terms. Somewhat grudgingly, it now provided:
Parents or guardians may request placement of a pupil in a secondary school other than the designated school. Every such request will be considered in the light, of the particular and individual circumstances relating to that request.
But it went on to say:
Pupils will only be placed in terms of this paragraph in a secondary school other than that designated where there is accommodation in the alternative school when all the requirements of children within its area have been satisfied.
Obviously, I agree that parents living in a neighbourhood should have first priority for a place in the local school. But the tone is still too negative:
Pupils will only be placed
after all other needs are met. One would almost think that the authority was wishing that there would be no room left in the school once the local places had been filled.
The modification which my right hon. Friend has made to the scheme, in contrast, makes this positive statement:
Every such request shall be given full and propel consideration taking account of the particular and individual circumstances relating to that request and shall normally be

granted if there is accommodation in the secondary school desired by the parent, in accordance with the policy which the Council have adopted for settling priorities for admission.
I must say again to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central that it makes nonsense of his suggestion that the education committee could not take into account, for example, a long travelling distance or the unsuitability of the curriculum of the school, because, as I shall go on to say, by ensuring that the education authority gives proper consideration, it can take these matters into account and, in refusing a request, it is now obliged to give full written details of the refusal. If it were a matter of a child travelling 20 miles or so across the region, that would be very simple to state and to argue in the event of a refusal.
The emphasis is placed on the words "shall normally be granted", and I believe that that is how it should be. The scheme now is a more positive commitment to meet parents' wishes wherever possible.

Mr. Cook: The anxiety of Lothian region is perfectly understandable. As the Minister is aware, its action on this matter could be challenged and could appear eventually before the sheriff. If it were taken before the sheriff, what the sheriff would read in the amended form of this scheme is that an application shall normally be granted where accommodation is available. The only criterion offered in this amended order is whether accommodation exists. The council's anxiety is that it will be very difficult for the local authority to plead in front of the sheriff any reason for refusal other than that spelt out here, which is the simple one of whether accommodation is available.

Mr. Fletcher: If that is the region's view, I am surprised. It is a very naive view, and one that other authorities do not share. I am sure that it would not be the view taken by a sheriff. A sheriff considering the example that I gave, of a child who was being taken 20 miles or so from home to school, would perfectly understand the position and would be sympathetic to the local authority.
A further defect in the scheme as submitted to my right hon. Friend is that it made no provision for giving parents on request details of the council's policy for settling priorities for admission where any school was oversubscribed. Just as important, no provision was made for parents whose requests had been refused to be given a written explanation of the consideration given to their request and the reasons for the council's decision. These defects too were remedied by means of the modifications made to the scheme.
In short, our view quite simply was that the scheme as submitted by the council was not drafted in terms wide enough to accommodate the more flexible and sympathetic approach towards parental choice which consultation showed many parents wanted; that it lacked provision for parents to be given details on request of the council's policy for settling priorities for admission to an oversubscribed school; and that it also lacked provision for parents whose requests had been refused to be given reasons. The Government's modifications put these matters right.

Mr. Maxton: I hope that the Minister will answer the very serious question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) about the comparison with other regions. The House is entitled to know what percentages of people in other regions apply for transfers, and the percentage refused by those other regional


authorities. If they are roughly the same as those in Lothian region, why is it only Lothian region that has been picked out for this sort of treatment?

Mr. Fletcher: The very simple reason is that the complaints that we receive in the Scottish Office—people are perfectly entitled under existing legislation to complain to the Secretary of State—have almost entirely related to the Lothian region.

Mr. George Foulkes: That is because they all live in Edinburgh and write to each other complaining.

Mr. Fletcher: We have not had the complaints from Fife. [Interruption.] South Ayrshire is proving the point again this evening.
We do not get complaints about Fife regional council. I happen to know that Fife operates a liberal scheme of parental choice and pays close attention to the complaints that parents make about the choice of school available to them. I think that the same is true in many parts, if not most parts, of Strathclyde. We do not receive anything like the same number of complaints from any other authority.
When parents exercise their statutory right, as the law now stands, to appeal to the Secretary of State because they believe that a local authority is not carrying out its duties properly, the Secretary of State has every right and duty to intervene.
There is one final point that I should make. As I have already mentioned, the provisions of transfer schemes apply only to the transfer from primary to secondary education. Lothian has, however, as a matter of policy in the past, applied the principles written into its transfer scheme in dealing with out-of-zone requests to similar applications in relation to primary schools. In notifying the council on 8 April of my consideration of its revised scheme and the outcome, I also asked that the general principles written into it should apply also to applications for admission to schools at stages other than the transfer stage—as I have said, no more than asking Lothian to continue past practice.
I understand, however, that the council has decided not to adopt the same policy for out-of-zone requests relating to admissions to primary schools. This is another example of the council's inflexibility and is clear evidence of its willingness to make it difficult for parents with children at primary school to get their choice, in order to force hard, unbending, narrow-minded policies on an unsuspecting public who deserve better from their local authority.
I have a classic example, which I hope will give rise to some genuine sympathy from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), of the problems the authority can create for parents. It was manifest in two cases that aroused considerable press interest in August this year, at the start of the new school session. That is not too surprising. Two sets of Edinburgh parents wanted their children to attend the Royal High primary school, only a few yards from their homes, rather than Craigentinny primary school which is some distance away, over busy roads. Sticking closely to its policy, the council refused the parents' request and I understand—[Interruption.] I note that my remarks are thought to be irrelevant.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The order concerns the transfer of pupils from

primary to secondary schools. The Minister has spent a considerable time talking about the entrance of five-year-olds into primary schools. Are his comments relevant?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was under the impression that the Minister was building up his case from primary to secondary school.

Mr. Fletcher: In Edinburgh, parents who wish to send their children—[Interruption.] This subject is terribly important to the parents, although it might be quite irrelevant to Opposition Members. Parents wish to send their children to schools with accommodation that are a few yards from their homes. That is being denied to them. They are being asked to send their children to other parts of the city and on journeys that will involve crossing busy roads. They find that they are denied the right to put their children in schools that can accommodate them and they feel so strongly that they are withholding their children from school and are likely to receive an attendance order. Opposition Members and the region should be ashamed of that.
For the future, the outlook for parents in Scotland is much brighter. Earlier today, the House approved the amendments made in another place to the Education (Scotland) Bill. The Bill now awaits Royal Assent. The provisions of that legislation will ensure that in future parents will have a greater say about the school that their children attend. We strongly believe that that is precisely as it should be.

Mr. O'Neill: We have had to listen to the Minister for 30 minutes. He has gone through a case that is based on premises that are quite irrelevant to the scheme. The only examples that he could bring to hand had nothing to do with the transfer from primary to secondary schools.

Mr. Cook: The Minister has introduced two cases that are irrelevant to the order and that are not affected by it. However, he has failed to answer the case that I put to him concerning a constituent who is affected by the order and who cannot obtain a place for his son at the local secondary school. At the start of the session, every available place was taken up by out-of-zone pupils.

Mr. O'Neill: The Government's concern for parents is very selective. It would appear that they are concerned only about those parents who do not wish their children to go to particular schools and they are not concerned to defend the rights of those who clearly intend to send their children to local neighbourhood comprehensives.
The Secretary of State has not provided any meaningful statistics. As regards the figures quoted for the so-called survey, anyone starting even an 0-grade course in statistics would know the worthlessness of self-selected samples. As regards the consultation procedures entered into with school councils, it is clear that it is not the school councils or parents who know best, but the Secretary of State. In every respect, the Secretary of State has failed to explain why no other local authority has been called to order in this way.
That leads me back to my initial conclusion, namely, that this is an attempt once again to get at Lothian. The Secretary of State has had another chance to have a go at Lothian and to carry on the vendetta. The case has been completely and utterly lost and we do not in any way wish to be associated with the scheme.

Question put and negatived

Youth Opportunities Programme

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Newton.]

Mr. Jim Craigen: I applied for permission to raise this Adjournment debate because I felt that the young people on youth opportunities programme schemes deserved a fairer deal. At present, our school leavers and young people are getting a pretty raw deal as a result of the Government's economic policies. When one looks in detail at this month's unemployment figures, it is interesting to note the extent to which the numbers entering the youth opportunities programme have increased. In Scotland, the figure has risen from 28,000 for last month to 35,000. The overall figure has increased from 215,000 to 270,000. That reflects the extent to which the youth opportunities programme is taking young people out of the official unemployment statistics.
I need hardly tell the Minister that more than 1 million young people have passed through the youth opportunities programme since its launch in April 1978. A programme that was originally designed to have about 25,000 places has grown almost tenfold and now faces serious criticism. The Minister knows full well that anxiety about certain aspects of YOP schemes is growing not only among trade unions but among employers' associations and, not least, among the young people themselves. I should like the Minister to spell out precisely Government thinking on youth employment. To help the Minister with his reply, I shall put three initial points to him before I mention the more general problems facing young people who seek to enter the work force.
First, I should like to see an immediate increase in the training allowance from £23.50 to a far more realistic figure. The Manpower Services Commission has recommended to the Department of Employment that the allowance should be increased to £28 a week as from 1 November.
Before the Summer Recess I asked the Minister what the allowance would be if it had been uprated in line with cost of living increases. The allowance was last raised in November 1979. I know that the Government do not believe in indexation, but I was told that in those circumstances the allowance would be £30.
Since the present youth opportunities programme will continue to operate in the next year or two the Minister should consider increasing the training period from six months to 12 months. He should also ensure that there is an adequate training element within all the current programmes. Moreover, some recognition should be given to the degree of training as a component of the youth opportunities programme. The Minister is looking a little bemused. Some credit should be given to the young person later if he happens to be fortunate and gain an apprenticeship.
I am disturbed to learn that only about 30 per cent. of young people completing YOP schemes are now entering employment. There has been a considerable drop since the scheme was introduced.
The Minister might be even more puzzled by my third point. The Government should be more explicit about when YOP will be replaced by a national system of training with employment for our school leavers and young people. There is a major commitment. It cannot


properly be financed entirely by employers or, indeed, by local authorities. The State accepts the responsibility for the financing of secondary schooling and higher education. It is about time that the State accepted that it has a responsibility for post-school training for young people in the 16 to 18 age group.
We cannot divorce unemployment among young people from the general mishandling of the United Kingdom economy by the Government. The job opportunities for young people reflect the depressing economic situation. Let us consider, for example, the latest October figures for unfilled vacancies in the Glasgow area. The Glasgow city total at the jobcenters is 2,171 and at the careers offices 14. Those are the job vacancies in a city where, according to the monthly unemployment figures, 73,756 people are out of work. In general, 54 youngsters are chasing each job.
During the Summer Recess I visited my local careers offices and jobcenters. Careers office staff are becoming demoralised. Careers offices are becoming placement bureaux for the special programmes, particularly for YOP. Although my remarks are directed primarily at YOP, I pay tribute to the achievements of the community industry scheme. Young people seeking job opportunities are disillusioned. I do not want the Minister to give us the usual Conservative Party Central Office bluff about the great international recession. The Government are inflating the impact of the global recession by cutting more deeply and more savagely into the domestic economy than is required. We see this in terms of the country's output and particularly in the drop in manufacturing output in the past 12 months, to the extent that it almost compares with the fall in output between 1929 and 1931.
Moreover, the Government threw away a marvellous opportunity by their decision to jettison the plans for a gas-gathering pipeline—I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton), is in his place which would have given jobs not only to the steel industry but to the construction industry and service industries. More particularly, I think that it would have raised the confidence that is so lacking when one talks to the managers and trade union officers in industry. That would have been especially significant. It is no wonder that more and more fellow Scotsmen look abroad for a future. The number of people seeking to emigrate from the United Kingdom is on the increase and it is no small wonder.
Young people have every right to expect far more than a taste of work when they leave school. We know that, unfortunately, there have been abuses in the operation of the present programmes. I concede readily that the Manpower Services Commission is doing its best to weed out employers who are not measuring up in some instances to the objectives and purposes of the youth opportunities programme. We have the madness, when we know that the number of young people aged 17 and 18 years is on the increase and coming to a peak, that the Government's policy for higher education is to cut back on the opportunities that might otherwise be available in our universities and advanced colleges. This contrasts curiously with the policy in the United States and Japan, where a far higher percentage of young people obtain university and higher education opportunities. 

The 18-year-olds are at the end of the queue for the youth opportunities programme. They are also at the bottom of the pack for the community enterprise programme. In other words, they are no one's priority. They lose to the 16 and 17-year-olds and they do not really have the same chances as older adults. The Minister must realise that some school leavers stayed on at school a little longer in the hope of acquiring additional qualifications and thereby enhancing their employment prospects.
What is the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have held a full-time permanent job? The YOP figures mask the true position because it takes them out of the monthly unemployment barometer. Will the Minister—the civil servant in the Box can occupy himself with this—tell me the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who have never held down a permanent job? They may have been in and out of a YOP scheme but they have never held down a permanent job.
I wrote to about six companies in my constituency about the Prime Minister's much-lauded young worker scheme. It was a sample grouping. My constituency is not especially industrial. The Government have done their best to reduce the number of firms within it. I wanted to know whether the young worker scheme would encourage firms to recruit more young people. The firms almost all replied to the effect that the scheme that the Department hopes to launch next January will make not one whit of difference. They all agreed with me that it would be simpler if the Government chose to remove the employers' national insurance surcharge for those under 18 years of age. They thought that that would be more conducive to their recruitment.
Moreover, we know that the young worker scheme is designed not so much to bring more young people into the employment market but to lower the wages of young people in industry generally. I hope that the Minister will be impressing on his Treasury colleagues, hard-faced men that they are now, that there is a case for removing the surcharge.
I ask the Minister to comment on the report that appeared in The Sunday Times of 18 October about the CBI's estimate that there will be 800,000 young people on the dole in two years' time. We are getting perilously near that figure already. The feature that strikes me about the tables that appear in the MSC's forecasts of growth and decline areas within the economy between 1978 and 1985 is that most of the increases that the commission expects are in the public sector, or are to be largely fuelled by public expenditure in areas such as construction. Even private employers in the building industry are glad these days to get public contracts. The declining sector to which the MSC was pointing was manufacturing industry. We have already seen a substantial avalanche in the decline in manufacturing.
The Times is not the most widely read newspaper north of the Tweed but my attention was drawn to its editorial of 9 October, which was rightly entitled
A generation at risk".
It is more than a generation that is at risk. Britain's future will be at risk if we persist in this fashion. Ministers are rather like rabbits that become paralysed in front of a stoat when it comes to taking positive action to reduce unemployment. On Friday one rather unwanted meeting that I shall be attending in Glasgow will involve meeting


the chief constable. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) has co-ordinated the arrangements for some of us to meet him.
We are going to see the chief constable about the growing incidence of drug taking and drug abuse, a problem that is by no means confined to the West of Scotland, and is growing in most parts of the country. Part of the problem is that more and more people have far too much time on their hands because they find it easier to get hold of heroin than a job. We know that some sinister people are making sizeable profits in that process, but the fact remains that the Ministers in the Department of Employment have a responsibility in that area because it seems that the up and coming generation prefers the world of hallucination to the realities of living under Mrs. Thatcher.

Mr. James Hamilton: I make no apology for continuing the debate. One of the greatest scourges to hit the country is that of unemployment. I know that it is not new. It was apparent during the Labour Government's term of office. However, it has now reached such gigantic proportions that the people are becoming restless as they see no light at the end of the tunnel. Every day of every week large redundancies in some of the major industries are revealed to us, and they are having an adverse effect on the economy.
In Bothwell, one company has made it known that 800 people will become redundant within the next few months. Another company has intimated to me that 220 people will become redundant. That may have happened already. The tragedy is that many people who have never been unemployed are signing on for the first time at the Department of Employment.
In such a situation our young people must suffer. This is one of the greatest tragedies to hit our nation. It is an even greater tragedy when young people leave school with no hope of employment. It can be said that the youth opportunities programme will give employment for six months to some of our young people, but I want to bring to the Minister's notice that in far too many instances many of those young people are being exploited by employers who should know better.
Those young people are being paid £23.15 a week, which is a mere pittance compared with the work which they are asked to do. I am aware that the MSC has suggested that the figure should be increased to £28 from 1 November. However, that is still insufficient. I suggest that many young people are continuing with further education not because they are desirous of doing it, but because they know that there will be no work for them when they leave school.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said that with the cuts in further education, there is still no hope for young people continuing their education. Those who are prepared to continue their higher education at secondary school should be paid the equivalent amount paid under the youth opportunities programme. That could go a long way towards solving this pernicious problem.
There was a television programme about Jarrow last night. One doctor said that, in his opinion, some of the suicides being committed are due to the unemployment scourge which now prevails. Those are not words which make me feel overjoyed. They make me feel very sad. 

We have cajoled the Government. We have attempted to persuade them. We have tried everything within our power to get them to change their policies so as to give not only young people but all the people in the country the opportunity to get back to work.
Every Tuesday and Thursday, and in every big debate on the economy, the Prime Minister states that her main objective is to bring down inflation. I am sure that the Minister is aware that she has not yet brought down inflation to the figure which she inherited when she became Prime Minister in 1979. That is indeed an indictment of the Government's policy.
It is farcical to use the money that is coming from North Sea oil to keep people on social security and unemployment benefit. It would be far better if the money were used to get people back to work. Our young people will never forgive the present Government, and in many instances they will not forgive us as Members of Parliament, because they feel frustrated, rejected and disillusioned. They feel that no one wants to do anything for them. We, as Members, are under criticism because nothing is happening in this House to end the sinister situation in which young people find themselves.
During the recess I visited the careers offices, the jobcenters and the various factories in my constituency. It was the most dismal recess that I have encountered during my 17 years in Parliament.
Before I came to this House I was in the construction industry. That industry, of course, is always one of the first casualties of any cuts. This, in turn, has a serious and adverse effect on the economy of the country. In such a situation our young people have no hope whatever.
It is important to note that many of our best craftsmen and tradesmen are emigrating. Therefore, unless young people are properly trained, on a national basis, to fill the jobs which will arise if and when the economy changes for the better, the country is bound to suffer.
I know that the Minister is not a member of the Cabinet but, knowing him as I do, I think that he is one of the wets. It is time that the wets got together and did something about the Goverment's policy. They know that the Opposition can do nothing about it. The wets should get together and tell the Prime Minister to change her policy. If she refuses to change her policy, she should resign and have a general election. If there were to be a general election now, there is no doubt that there would a change of Government and a change of policy.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) has taken the opportunity to raise this important matter in the House tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) spoke of his visits, during the long recess, to areas in his constituency. He was able to witness what was happening in the factories, the job centers, and so on. He was able to observe the misery, the desolation and the despair which are apparent now in all parts of Britain.
There are thousands of young people without work in the East and West Midlands where, for two or three decades after the war, unemployment among young people and adults was at a relatively low level. But the West Midlands has seen a massive increase in unemployment—even higher than in Scotland, which bore the brunt of unemployment in the 1950s and 1960s. Scotland


usually leads the way for the rest of Britain, and the trends that are first seen there are usually repeated elsewhere at a later date. That is also true in political terms. That is why we look forward to the demise of the Government and to the next general election, based upon the way in which Scotland has reacted since the East election and beyond.
When the YOP was first introduced, the Labour Government spoke of the need to introduce it to deal with matters at the margin. It was a kind of cosmetic to deal with a few youngsters who were unable to find jobs. That was the idea. No one in his wildest dreams imagined that it would stretch across the whole of Great Britain and that so many thousands of young people would have to take part in the scheme for a few miserly months, only to be thrown back on the scrap heap. I have no doubt that what my hon. Friends from Scotland have said can be repeated throughout the country.
Just a few days ago, at the Tory Party conference, the Minister for unemployment had the audacity to suggest that those on the dole, young and old alike, should get on their bikes and go looking for work. I do not know whether they would reach Scotland, but, from the evidence of my hon. Friends, it is clear that there is no possibility of any respite there, nor in Wales, nor indeed anywhere in Great Britain. It is clear what the Government are really up to when their spokesman at the Tory Party conference tells people to get on their bikes and search for jobs. Those people have searched the jobcenters throughout their communities in the hope of finding jobs, but in many parts of the country 600 to 700 people are going after one job.
This is no accident. It is not because the recession is some kind of act of God, as Ministers like to suggest. It was deliberately planned, well before the election, with a view to throwing people out of work. The dole queue was deliberately increased to shift the so-called balance of power away from those in work to those in the Establishment. That is the truth of the matter. Indeed, the Tories, in Opposition, said that they wished to shift the ratchet back towards the ruling class, so they are quite happy. The Minister may tell us today how sorry he is that all this has happened, but every policy of the Tory Government has been oriented towards ensuring that the misery and despair continue.
The Government had no pay policy when they came to power, but they have one now. It is the policy of putting 3 million to 4 million people out of work, including 1 million under the age of 25, so that the rest have to work for peanuts. That is why Michael Edwardes can say that he has a 3.8 per cent. pay policy for British Leyland. I am glad that young and older people there are standing up to this. If we are to have jobs in Scotland, in the East Midlands and in the rest of the country, purchasing power must increase. It cannot be done except by more money circulating in the pockets of those at work and those who wish to work, so that they can buy more goods and other people can have jobs in Scotland and elsewhere.
The same applies to the taxation argument. We remember all the stories before the election about cutting taxes. We need a real reduction in taxation, not a bogus one which cuts taxation by 3p and then refuses to raise personal allowances in line with inflation. We need to cut taxation by massively raising personal allowances in the

next Budget, so that those living at the margin and below the poverty line can push more money back into the economy to produce more jobs for other people.
There is also the interdependence of the various industries in the United Kingdom which feed upon one another. The Government have systematically run down first one industry, upon which another has relied to some extent for jobs, and then another industry. All those industries—engineering, shipbuilding, textiles, even fishing—are interdependent and live upon one another. As a result, a massive number of job opportunities have been lost.
Is it any wonder that we had the type of disturbances seen during the summer? That was bound to happen. Britain's social fabric will break down if young people are told that they have no jobs or no hope and that they must stick with this policy until the Prime Minister decides to change it. I doubt whether it will be changed, because the right hon. Lady is likely to be forced to go the country on the basis of 4 million people out of work.
I used to work in the mines. For nearly 30 years it was generally reckoned that young people in Nottinghamshire or Derbyshire would be able to go down a mine, if nothing else. But because many factories that used coal no longer exist, young people are now being sifted by the National Coal Board. There are now queues at the so-called prosperous Midlands coalfields that were crying out for labour throughout the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Only by feeding money into the economy to help our various industries shall we be able to get people back to work—people who are now receiving this miserly £23 a week.
That is why a few weeks ago at the Labour Party conference our alternative strategy called for full trade union rights and rates of pay for those on the youth opportunities programme. That would give those young people the ability to push more money into the economy. That is why our alternative strategy also talked about earlier retirement, similar to the scheme introduced in the mining industry.
What is wrong with giving people the opportunity voluntarily to retire at 60, or over, and giving them the extra £23 a week on top of their old age pension? That would provide an inducement for them to retire, thus giving young people the opportunity to move into their jobs. That is a more realistic programme, because the kids receiving this miserly sum of money are being exploited by these so-called entrepreneurs up and down the country.
My hon. Friends referred to the suffering that has been caused. During the past 12 months, there have been many examples of young people in various parts of the country committing suicide. Documents have been produced by experts who have carefully analysed the figures showing how the number of suicides has increased among not only young people but older people who have been thrown out of work. Without doubt, there is a strict correlation between the suicide rate and the stress and other factors allied to unemployment.
Yesterday, the Minister for Health said that he was worried about the correlation between unemployment and the matters that I have described. But what does he intend to do about it? He is now part of a Government who yesterday, and supposedly next week, discussed in Cabinet the possibility of cutting back even more. By


further reducing our purchasing power, they will throw even more young people and others out of work. They will deny to those people the chance to obtain work.
I jotted down a note as I came into the Chamber. I noticed that the smoked salmon specialists were not present to talk about this real and central issue in our economy. Where are they? Not one SDP or Liberal Party Member is here. They are all eating their smoked salmon and drinking their claret at Croydon, in the hope that some people might support them tomorrow. But this is where the argument is. They should be here tonight to voice their opinions on this important subject that has been brought to our attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Maryhill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell spoke about restoring cuts in public expenditure being essential. There are about 500 million bricks stored at the London Brick Company and at various other places. About 300,000 construction workers are unable to get jobs. There are probably about 1 million people who could be described as homeless or on the verge of being homeless. It does not need a Pythagoras to get the bricks laid by construction workers in order to put roofs over the heads of people who want houses. It does not need a Pythagoras to sort that lot out. It needs the intention of a Government who are prepared to do it, but this Government are determined to cause even more misery.
Electrification of the railways could provide additional jobs for young people. Sewers are falling into disrepair all over the country. We hear daily of the repairs needed in the major conurbations. Here is an opportunity to put young people to work instead of having them racing about on some of these nonsense schemes and being exploited by Marks and Spencer and other employers who take them on for £23 a week and push other workers, who would be getting a proper wage, out of jobs.

(Mr. Peter Morrison): Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he is opposed to the scheme?

Mr. Skinner: Although the Minister may be looking at the problem—and it is a mighty problem—within a cocoon of its own, I am saying that it is part and parcel of a greater malaise deliberately brought about by the Government continually attempting to increase the number of places on the youth opportunities programme, the work experience programme and various other schemes. The Government are not tackling the real problem—the need to change the whole economy, restore the cuts, build more houses, and get people engaged on railway maintenance and on the sewers and canals which have fallen into disrepair. That is what I am trying to illustrate.
The youth opportunities programme was introduced to alleviate at the margin, but it is becoming a central feature of the Government's programme. That is why the Prime Minister declared that it would be a good idea to have an addition to the YOP whereby employers would be given so many pounds per week to employ young people as long as they did not earn more than £40 a week. That is another variation of the YOP. It has become an essential feature of the Government's programme. The idea is to depress wages more and more to ensure that the trade unions' bargaining power is weakened ever more. 

While young people are searching for jobs, what do they see on the other side, in the green pastures? They read about those who are managing to get by very nicely in the casino economy. Last year Ladbroke announced profits of 71 per cent. The banks made £3,000 million in the first two years of the Government's term of office. When interest rates are at 17 per cent. for most of the time£they are not much lower than that now£it gives the banks and financial institutions the ability to operate within wide margins, They are able to make a lot more money because the chance of failing with interest rates at that level is very small. For the industrial base, the returns are down to the miserly levels of 2 per cent., 3 per cent. and 4 per cent.
This Government, who came to power on the basis of helping small businesses, have made sure that there are small businesses. They have got smaller and smaller. About 15,000 have disappeared during the two and a half years that the Government have been in power.
The Tories said that small businesses were weighed down by the paraphernalia forced on them by the Labour Government. Some employers in my constituency and in other areas would welcome the opportunity to fill in forms for some of the schemes introduced by the Labour Government. About 15,000 do not even have a letterbox for the forms to go through. They would welcome the chance to be back in business and to employ more young people.
The casino economy is proliferating under this Government, but they are not looking after our youngsters. Some are using heroin and God knows what else. That is the market force State that we now have. There is a market for heroin in the free world of the Tory Party. The market forces set the price for heroin. In Glasgow, it can be up one week and down another, according to supply and demand. That is the testament of this Government. It is a matter not of getting out bikes, but of getting people back to work manufacturing bikes and all the other things that are necessary.
I am not against the YOP being used at the margin, but it is being used as part of the base of the Tory Government's economy. The only way that they will get these hundreds of thousands of young people back to work is to change the whole system, increase purchasing power and restore the cuts in public expenditure, which will enable people to take part in the various areas of construction that are absolutely necessary.
The headmaster who appeared recently on television said it all. We have to consider not only the 1 million youngsters under 25 who do not have jobs. He said that he did not know what to tell his fourth and fifth form pupils. There is no incentive for them to get more O-levels and A-levels. Their brothers, sisters and friends have no jobs, and some of them have O-and A-levels. They do not see why they should bother to further their education and do their homework.
That is the legacy of this rotten Government in two and a half years. The Minister is part of it. He can weep crocodile tears. He may say that he is a wet, although he would not dare to do so from the Dispatch Box. The Government's strategy has caused misery and despair, and they will reap the harvest when an election is called.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for giving us an opportunity to discuss the scourge of unemployment at the beginning of this spillover period—the time when we deal with the odds and sods that are left over. However, unemployment is not a leftover item. It is a main and continuing cause of anxiety to the House and the people outside.
In Keighley unemployment stands at 13 per cent. In May 1979 it was only 4.2 per cent. The increase is entirely the responsibility of the Government. In comparison with other areas 13 per cent. may be modest. It is still a scourge in Keighley. People in Keighley are apprehensive about the develoment of an industrial desert in the area. They see little prospect of an upturn in the economy whatever the Chancellor of the Exchequer says from time to time about the signs of coming rescue.
Only recently the People's Campaign for Jobs passed through Keighley. We entertained those taking part in the march which took them from Sheffield to Blackpool. Many of the marchers had been involved in a YOP scheme. When they got to Blackpool they demonstrated their strength of feeling in a forceful but disciplined manner. What happened inside the Conservative Party conference? Various Conservative Members were interviewed on television. They sneered. There were sneers from the rostrum, suggesting that those taking part in the march were engaged in a bit of a dodge. That attitude was symbolised by the cheap, nasty and sneering speech from one of the cheapest, nastiest and most sneering Ministers of the Tory Government, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). Opposition Members have not forgotten the day when the right hon. Gentleman, sitting on these Benches, told the late Tom Litterick to go and have another heart attack. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
That vicious attitude was demonstrated to all and sundry at the Conservative Party conference. The right hon. Gentleman departed from his prepared speech. He went off into vicious Right-wing flights of fancy, telling the unemployed that they should follow his father's example, get on a bike and find work. I invite the Minister who will be replying to say where the unemployed can go when they get on their bikes to search for work. Some young people are already going all over the place. They are desperate for jobs. Some would not mind the jobs that Tory Members have on the side. It would be a nice gesture if some Tory Members with directorships in addition to receiving public assistance as hon. Members gave up a few of those jobs as a gesture. That would amount to a few hundred jobs for a start.
His cynical vicious sneer at the unemployed exposed the Secretary of State for Employment for what he is—a man with a heart of iron. He does not give a damn about the unemployed. His answer is for the unemployed to get on a bike and look for jobs, even though he knows that the reality is that 4 million, not 3 million, face the dole if those who are not registered are included. This situation is ruining whatever notion the Government might have entertained about reducing the public sector borrowing requirement. It actually forms a major part of the PSBR. About £10 billion is involved in unemployment benefit,

schemes such as YOPs and loss of tax revenue. This is going out of control. Indeed, it is inflationary. It is demand without production.
The Tories must realise that they are reaching a watershed. They must either get rid of the Prime Minister and switch their policies or recognise that they are drifting to an almighty electoral disaster. They are now characterised as the party of unemployment. Not only that; after the Secretary of State's speech at the Conservative Party conference, they are characterised as the party that does not care about the unemployed. The Prime Minister can appear on television, putting on her Saatchi and Saatchi voice, or go on the Jimmy Young Show and say, "I am terribly concerned, Jimmy, about unemployment." The fact is that she has appointed a Secretary of State for Employment as part of the hard attitude that she displays in her selection of Ministers. It is a shift to the Right.
The Conservative Party is beginning to realise that the only way that it can change the policy is to change the leadership. For the sake of the unemployed I hope that that happens. The Prime Minister and her policies will clearly be a disaster for the Tories at the next election, but I would gain no satisfaction from a Tory electoral disaster at the expense of millions of people experiencing misery and degradation in the dole queues.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) said, the YOP was introduced by the Labour Government to assist a tiny minority. It was one of a number of schemes, most of which were cut as soon as the Conservatives got into office. The grants for small businesses were abolished, the job retirement scheme was cut and has only recently been restored to the level at which it stood when the Conservatives came to power. The temporary short-time working scheme was immediately cut from 12 months to six months and was subsequently extended to nine months as the extent of the employment disaster hit the Government.
It is worth reflecting on why all those schemes were cut. The Conservatives said that they would unleash entrepreneurial ability and give tax concessions to the wealthy so that the capitalists in our society could clamber into their Rolls-Royces, Bentleys or Jaguars, go to areas of high unemployment and create jobs. I know that it sounds lunatic and we said in 1979 that it was lunatic, but the Conservatives believed it.
But it has not worked out that way. The entrepreneurs have shown a striking lack of patriotism. They are putting their money anywhere except in this country and they have been assisted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who removed all exchange controls shortly after taking office. The Government believe in the rights of capital over the rights of labour. They knock the trade unions through legislation, but they give freedom to those who own capital.
It is not working. Capitalism is tottering. Entrepreneurs are not entrepreneuring or producing all the jobs that we were promised or making the high quality decisions that tax concessions and high incomes apparently give them the right to make.
The YOP scheme, which was designed by the Labour Government to assist a relatively small number of young people, has become a central pillar of the Government's strategy. When the Government are taxed with that, the Prime Minister puts on her Saatchi and Saatchi voice and


tells us how many thousands of young people have places on the extended scheme. That is the Elastoplast on the bleeding sore of unemployment.
Current Department of Employment statistics show that there are 270,000 young people on the YOP scheme. They stay on the scheme for only six months, so an enormous section of our youth has been involved in the scheme. They must feel desperate when, after being given a nominal job, they are discarded after six months and have to go back in the dole queues.
It is worth remembering that before the general election the Tories said that YOP jobs and others were fake jobs and not real jobs. They said that they would provide the real jobs, but they now use the very system that they criticised so vehemently in 1979 as an example of their care and concern for the unemployed.
I emphasise that many of the youngsters involved in the YOP scheme believe that they are being exploited in some instances, that the wage is relatively low, that they are not paid trade union rates, and that they are not encouraged to have trade union rights. The industrial injuries position is somewhat hazy and hazardous.
I am impressed by the turnout of Labour Members tonight. It is obviously an expression of the Labour Party's worry about the level of unemployment among the population at large and particularly the young. There is concern on the Opposition Benches that YOP schemes are being used to replace full-time workers in full-time jobs. We want that to be stopped.
I emphasise that all the Government's crocodile tears about caring for the unemployed are belied by their attitude to their own workers in the public sector, because the Government are requiring cuts in Civil Service jobs. This is not as a result of productivity For example, in the Central Office of Information an instruction has been given that so many jobs must be cut. That means fewer opportunities for young people. It means a greater likelihood that the YOP scheme will have to be extended. It is directly as a result of Government action and decision to cut jobs in the Civil Service. It is nothing to do with productivity. The COI has told its members that it must now cut jobs as a result of Government decree and direction.

Mr. Robin F. Cook: Will my hon. Friend also bear in mind the example of the Property Services Agency? In the two years in which the present Government have been in office, the number of apprentices recruited by the PSA has been cut from 518 to a mere 36, which represents 500 school leavers who this year will not have the opportunity of a training for a skill in a steady and secure job.

Mr. Cryer: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
I shall bring my remarks quickly to a close because my hon. Friends are here to contribute to the debate to express their concern.
The Government must look at reflation. It is absurd to spend money on schemes such as the YOP and at the same time cut local authority expenditure, cut areas of Government activity and cut the nationalised industries, and so create longer dole queues which they have to spend more money propping up with Government schemes such as the YOP.
The Government must consider import controls. We have had a big lobby here today from the Transport and

General Workers Union and the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers—mostly in the car industry—expressing their fears. It is not a question of cutting in relation to the developing countries. We can give them preferential treatment—but only if we plan our trade. If we have a free trade economy, we cannot do anything about them at all.
Lastly, I emphasise that for the future we have to reckon that we must switch from defence expenditure to expenditure for peaceful purposes. The Minister may say, "Public expenditure does not create jobs." That is not an argument that the Government use over defence. They say that defence expenditure cannot be cut because it creates jobs.
We must make sure that we put money into research and development for the goods and products that people need and want. We have the example of Japan, whose industry is thriving. Japanese products are all over the world. They are good, efficient products. One of Britain's problems is cutting imports of Japanese motor vehicles. That is because the Japanese put their ability and their investment into peaceful purposes. They do not soak up their resources in the wasteful way in which we do, on defence, for products that can only exterminate people and cannot benefit mankind.
There is a future provided that we get a Government who will implement Socialist policies, a Labour Government, to clear up the terrible, deteriorating and harmful mess created by the policies of the present Tory Government. The sooner we get a Labour Government, the better.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I feel proud to participate in this debate, along with some of my colleagues who have remained here to participate. It is one of the most important debates that we shall have for a long while, even though it will last for only a couple of hours. It has given us the opportunity to draw attention to the serious problem of finding work for young people.
Like many of my colleagues on these Benches, I worked hard in my constituency during the recess. I had the opportunity to get around and see the problems of unemployment.
I wrote to the Prime Minister two days ago, because before the recess she said that Members of Parliament could knock on the door of No. 10 and tell her whether firms in their constituencies were in serious difficulties. I seized that opportunity because of the unemployment situation and because of the way in which firms are collapsing in a way that has never happened before in my constituency in the East Midlands.
Many Labour Members have been saying for some time how the Government could overcome some of the unemployment problems—problems which affect the railways, the roads and water. Yes, I want to talk about sewerage. There is a firm in my constituency—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on unemployment. It should relate to the youth opportunities programme, and that is what the Minister will reply to.

Mr. Haynes: I shall draw attention to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This firm regularly took on youngsters from school to train them. In May 1979, there were 473 employees at this


firm. Today there are 103. That is the sort of situation that exists in many constituencies, not just in mine. It means that the kids who leave school do not have a hope in hell of getting a job. About 635 children left school in my constituency this summmer, and few of them have got a job. They could have gone to this firm which regularly took on youngsters to train in concrete pipe making. The managing director has to go abroad, cap in hand, to Japan and Spain, to try to find work and keep adults as well as youngsters in employment.
I continually tell the Minister for Health that the National Health Service is going down the drain. He keeps telling me that waiting lists are dropping. It so happens, because of Government policy, that the waiting lists are going the other way. They are getting longer and longer.
There is a tragic situation in the training of young lads and lasses. Those who train as nurses are being turned away. The youngsters who are being trained at the moment and who finish in December have been told, after two years' training and all the public expenditure that that involves, that there is no job for them in the National Health Service in the locality. That is a shocking state of affairs. The Government should not be proud of that. They keep saying "We are winning through. Our policy will work, not yours. There is no alternative."
However, there is an alternative, and that is to plough money in the right direction, and not into the dole queue and into youngsters who are being paid £23.50 a week. Let us face the facts of life. People in the country are waking up. We woke up long ago. The Conservative Government are using the scheme as a racket. It was brought into being by a Labour Government for a purpose, but it is being abused. There are firms which are abusing the system with Government support—the big combines in the market place and along the high street. I can name them: Marks and Spencer, Littlewoods, British Home Stores. What are they doing? They are taking youngsters on at £23.50, at the expense of jobs for adults. In my locality, I find youngsters, not adults, working in the stores. Adults are on the dole, costing the nation a fortune. All the oil revenues from the North Sea are being spent on unemployment. That is a ridiculous state of affairs. We are paying people to be bone idle and to stay at home doing nothing.
I wrote to the Minister, but he told me to table a question if I wanted to know the answer. In my area, youngsters cannot even get hearing aids, because the work force that supplies them has been reduced. That relates to the cuts. The former Secretary of State for Social Services constantly told us that more and more money was being ploughed into the social services and into hospitals. The opposite is true. At the same time, the Government encourage the private sector. Those who can afford the services receive them. Poor youngsters and adults who had jobs 12 months ago, but who are without jobs now, cannot afford to pay. They must remain dependent on the National Health Service, which the Government are ruining. So it goes on.
I was surprised by a suggestion that the Government are now putting into operation. The Government are allowing people to retire at 60 and to take redundancy payments so that they can create positions for youngsters. That is fair enough. However, if we were not in such a situation, the Government would not take such action. Early retirement

is a racket to cover up the state of unemployment. The sooner Conservative Members wake up to the actions of their Cabinet, the better off we shall all be.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North) rose——

Mr. Haynes: We have a nation, not just——

Mr. Greenway: Mr. Greenway rose——

Mr. Haynes: Sit down. We must look after the work force that provides the money. The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has only just come into the Chamber. That is shocking. Some Conservative Member must have left the Chamber to tell his colleagues to come in and fill the Benches. They were empty a few minutes ago.
The sooner the Government and Conservative Members wake up, the sooner we shall move in the right direction and the sooner jobs will be created for the adults who have to look after youngsters who are themselves looking for work.
I made it a duty to check at the local courts about appearances. Since the last election in 1979, appearances among the 16 to 19-year-olds have doubled. Why? Youngsters have nothing to do. They hang round on street corners and at discos. They have nothing to do but to get into trouble. The Government's response is to suggest that someone should raise some money by holding a raffle somewhere. They want to entertain those youngsters and keep them active. That is not the answer. They are tomorrow's work force. If we do not deal with the situation, we shall go further and further downhill. The sooner the next election comes that will get the Conservative Party out of office the better off we shall all be.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In debates such as this there is a danger of underestimating the role that the youth opportunities programme can play in resolving our problems. I endorse many of the comments made by my hon. Friends, but I should like to draw on the other side of the argument. Within British society, there is an institution—local government—that can play a very important role in the correct exercise of schemes under the Manpower Services Commission's programmes.
In the Lake District, Cumbria and Workington there is an important problem—escalating unemployment. Only in the last few hours it has been announced that a further 250 jobs might be lost in the next few months. They will be lost from an important employer—High Duty Alloys—which has operated in West Cumbria for 40 years. Officers in that company have been passionate in their attempt to steer the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment in the direction of new and adventurous forms of employment opportunities for young people. Officers of the company sponsored the West Cumberland Training Association which, with only limited resources, has made a major contribution locally. The Under-Secretary of State has considered the company's position before. In the light of the most recent wave of announced redundancies by a company which has an important part to play in the provision of apprenticeships in West Cumbria, I hope that the Under-Secretary will give its position extra attention. 


Since last March 3,000 young people in the area have been placed in the youth opportunities programme However, 1,000 young people in Cumbria still need to be placed if we are to fulfil the Christmas guarantee of 1980 I agree with my hon. Friend's reservations about the operation of the youth opportunities programme in the private sector. Abuses have occurred, but they have not been wholesale. Many good employers in the private sector use the scheme carefully and I do not wish to undermine them, but abuses have occurred.
I believe that local government has a strong role to play in the provision of schemes which are acceptable, which do not abuse the Department's guidelines and which are acceptable not only to Government supporters but to many of my hon. Friends who are disturbed about the possibility of trade union rights being undermined. Some of my hon. Friends have faith in public institutions because they are more accountable and more responsible. Local authorities, as public institutions, can be used by the Government in the development of the type of schemes that we are discussing.
Earlier this year I spent some days in Blackburn examining schemes that the Blackburn district council had set up. The Blackburn MSC operation draws several million pounds of Government money. It is interesting in that the scheme has been set up in a special unit outside the town hall but it is totally accountable to the town hall. At the last count, in excess of 1,000 young people were being hired and that was biting into the problems of unemployment in the town. The MSC schemes that operate in Blackburn have the support not only of local community bodies but of the whole trade union movement in Blackburn. The trade unions there are directly involved in the selection and administration of the schemes.
After my visit to Blackburn I wrote a document for the Allerdale district authority entitled "Target 750", which suggested the construction of a unit within that district similar to that which operates in Blackburn. I suggested that the Allerdale district should set up a similar sponsored unit, operated and imaginatively backed by special appointments of young people and with professional expertise to ensure a responsible and sensible approach to the problems of youth unemployment.
My authority has not been as receptive as I should have liked, but I understand that some objections have been raised by councillors—not of my political persuasion—who believe that the materials allowance is insufficient to back up the sort of operation that Allerdale district council would wish to have if it were possible. The problem would be resolved if the materials allowance were increased and if the Government said to local authorities "You have a responsibility to set up schemes to resolve our problem of youth unemployment."
Perhaps the Minister will call a conference of representatives of all the local authorities in Britain to discuss the setting up of such schemes on the basis of the imaginative way that it has been done in Blackburn. If the Government do not respond in that way, we shall not resolve this problem. Increasing numbers of young people will find themselves obliged to enter into schemes which abuse the principle of the youth opportunities programme, The programme will become discredited and it will be difficult in future for any of us to stand up and demand that the necessary resources are expended and invested to solve the problem. 

The Manpower Services Commission's regional operations raise a problem that is not often reflected here. Some of the regional and district offices feel that they do not have the resources necessary to provide the sort of monitoring service that should be provided. The responsibility rests upon the Department of Employment and on the Manpower Services Commission to go out and examine the schemes being sponsored by the Department. Unless there are sufficient monitoring officers and unless the pressure on existing monitoring officers is relieved, there is a danger that further abuses will develop and the schemes will be further discredited.
I rose to speak tonight to draw the Minister into the argument and to suggest to him that local authorities, being publicly accountable bodies having traditional relationships with trade unions, should have it within their power to set up responsible programmes. The Minister can call on local authorities to take the initiative, but he must set the conditions to enable them to respond. At present they do not accept that they are in a position to respond, first, because £23.50 a week is insufficient and, secondly and more importantly, because the materials allowance is too low. Too often the allowance is spent on the provision of transport from the central site to the job that is being undertaken on any particular programme. We should like to see a greater materials allowance, if only to provoke a reaction from local authorities and to enable the Minister to get them round the table and bring them into the area of responsibility for resolving this problem.
We must resolve this problem. We cannot allow it to go on as it is. The whole machine that has been built up has become amateurish in many areas, and many people in the regions openly admit it. They feel that the programme is starved of the necessary resources to give it the professional polish that it needs if it is to attract and be given the kind of credit that young people wish it had when they apply for the posts. Many young people refuse to enter MSC schemes because they feel that they lack the extra finesse that full-time employment offers. The approach that I have outlined will further help young people to feel that this at least offers them some solution to their immediate problem.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall not detain the House. I shall not express my agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) at too great a length. I hope that the Minister will take note of my hon. Friend's remarks about the need to improve materials and allowances.
I can relate an experience in my constituency last Friday when I visited one work scheme. I discovered that while the allowances are sufficient if the youngsters help the elderly, if they are to embark upon an imaginative scheme, which I hope they shall do shortly, by de-silting the lake at the Firbeck hospital, the allowances will be scarcely sufficient. If inflation continues to rise—we have no reason to expect otherwise—the level of allowances will create problems.
I am delighted to have this brief opportunity to speak. I applied for an Adjournment debate this week, together with scores of Labour Members, many of whom are worried about unemployment. Only five Members could be satisfied.
I wish to raise the question of employment in the southeastern part of my constituency. I realise that if I put the


general arguments about employment I shall be out of order. I shall concentrate on youngsters, who are affected by the general position. I remind the Minister that on 19 occasions by letter, five occasions at Question Time and four occasions in debate during the past two years I have pointed out that for both young and old people in the parishes of Dinnington, Anston, Firbeck, Woodsetts, Gildingwells, Letwell, Kiveton Park and Laughton Common unemployment averages more than 23 per cent. The towns are not part of an assisted area.
I read in The Star, the Morning Telegraph, and no doubt I shall read in the local weeklies on Friday, about the figures in the Sheffield travel-to-work area. They are above the national average. The figures for the Dinnington employment exchange will not be published. They are buried in the travel-to-work area as a whole. I have argued time and time again that it is the right time for the employment exchange area at Dinnington to be removed from the Sheffield travel-to-work area and placed within the other employment exchange areas in the metropolitan borough of Rotherham so that it may enjoy assisted area status.
It is absurd that youngsters in my constituency should be treated in a different manner. Maltby has intermediate status and Rotherham and Mexborough and Wombwell are development areas. It is quite right that they should be so categorised. Their unemployment level is ridiculously high. Dinnington is even higher, yet it is not assisted. I hope that the Minister will not accept that the patterns of neat bureaucracy must always be the only criterion upon which decisions are made.
I wish to pay tribute to the attitude and record of my local authority. Rotherham borough council has a splendid record. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington mentioned the reluctance to act of non-Labour councils in parts of Cumbria. We are fortunate in Rotherham because 63 of the 66 councillors are Labour, as are 18 of the 18 county councillors. All of them are determined to do their utmost to ensure that the maximum possible opportunity is given to our youngsters. Rotherham has a number of schemes. Perhaps my hon. Friend would care to come to Rotherham to look at some of the successful ventures.
There has been much anxiety about abuse. If the trade union movement is properly involved, as it should be, it is possible to stamp out much of the abuse and, in local authority schemes, to obliterate it altogether.
I am a trustee of the Rother Valley youth force. It is engaged in splendid and commendable work. Two of the trustees are officials of local trade union branches. I attended the last youth force meeting when those trustees played an active and prominent role. The Minister should seek to ensure that trade unions are fully involved. If that is to be done properly, he must do something about the rate of pay of £23.50 a week. No self-respecting trade unionist can expect people to work for a week for such a sum. I am not suggesting that youngsters should be paid enormous wages. There must be limits. However, the Minister must recognise that that sum has not kept pace with inflation and does not provide the incentive that will take our youngsters off the streets and prevent the troubles in Toxteth, Southall and many other places.
In addition to paying a slightly higher materials allowance it would be disirable to provide a substantially higher level of remuneration. However, none of those

schemes, none of the good will and none of the dedication of the local authority will survive unless we have a different economic climate.
There is no way in which youth opportunities schemes or any of the other job creation schemes which we have in South Yorkshire can match the need. We need a different attitude from that displayed by the previous Minister of State with responsibilities for regional aid, who sent me a most arrogant and insensitive letter. I showed it to the local industrialist on whose experience my case was based. That industrialist will regard this Government for a long time with great contempt. That contempt will be deserved unless we have not merely an adjustment in our policies for youth employment but a dramatic change from the way in which our economic affairs are being mismanaged.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: This is an important debate even though it is not concerned with the direct issue. The Government do not seem to understand he nation's position.
The economic situation is so grave that there is no hope for our young people. They cannot look to the future with hope. They know full well that they will be incapable of doing the jobs that will be demanded of them in this technological world. The Government are talking about alleviating unemployment by providing jobs for young people that are of no great value.
We have argued about conscription. It is said, "Take them into the Forces. Give them discipline. Occupy their time." What effect will that have? What will they have been trained to do in this highly technological period? How many young people of wealth are not free to earn their living in valid forms? Often it is not in industry but by some other means that they ensure that they are educated to earn a living in society.
Too often many of the working class join the Conservative Party and think that they are doing marvellously on behalf of themselves and others. They do that knowing full well that they are not guaranteeing a future to boys and girls from the same stock from which they came. We talk about engaging youth at £23.50 a week when many a labouring job for six months or 12 months would pay them more.
What about their training for the future? What about their education? What about their ability to earn a living in a system that applies throughout the world? Where would they be in Japan? Where would they be in the United States of America? Where would they be in Germany or France? They would not be capable of earning a living because they would not be trained. It is a shocking disgrace and a damnation to our society that we who are in control of this society tell our young people, "We will give you jobs doing all sorts of little things without any future for £23.50 a week to occupy your time."
I do not know how we dare to talk in that way in this place. We must try to place ourselves in the position of our young people. We must talk to them. We must ask them about their ambitions and how they see their future in life. Some will be able to tell us and some will not because they have lost heart. They are losing their faith in society and we are to blame. We are not giving them their future—

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]

Mr. Wainwright: That which we are offering young people is of no value to them and they are losing faith in society.
Why do we have so much trouble with our young people? Why do not we think back to our earlier lives? I think about mine on many occasions. I worked in the pits at 14 years of age. I had a terrible job. I would not wish such a job upon anybody. I became unemployed when I was 20 years of age. For nine months there was no hope. I was blacklisted in the district. My friends think that I am too moderate and too quiet. I drew 17 shillings a week for six months and then I was given nothing. There was no more. At first my father received nothing and then he watt given 10 shillings.
Why do the Government not look to our young people? Why do we not train them? Why do we not educate them? No boys or girls should be allowed to leave school until they are 21 or 22 years of age unless they are going to a trained occupation.
Why do we not give young people sandwich courses? Why do we not offer that sort of opportunity? Why do we not tell industry, "If you want this young boy or girl, you must put him or her on a sandwich course and provide a wage for six months. If you do that, we shall educate them for six months"? Why do not we plan for their future?
The Government should think about what is happening in Japan, France, Germany and the United States. When it comes to educating young people, Britain is at the bottom of the league. We are at the bottom of the league, too, when it comes to producing wealth. We have never ensured that our young people are educated for the future. In technological terms we still live in the days of the backwoodsmen.
In the area which I represent there has been unemployment ranging from 21 per cent. to 14 per cent. The Manvers coking plant was closed. The foundry is destined to close. Recently I received a letter from the Minister of State, Department of Industry. It referred to young people. One paragraph stated:
The Manpower Services Commission is active in the area in trying to alleviate the unemployment problem by running youth opportunities programmes and training courses.
How many young boys and girls from the Manvers coking plant have been promised a job? How many will get a job after leaving the Wombwell foundry? We are letting down our young people.
We are also letting down the community as a whole because our young people are being taken advantage of and the system has been abused. If companies believe in private enterprise to the extent to which the Government believe in it and if, at every opportunity, they take advantage so that they can make money out of anything at all, many of them will employ young people in place of adults. Sometimes that principle is adopted.
Unless both Front Benches wake up to what is happening and to advanced technology in Japan, the United States, Germany and France in comparison with our technology, we cannot hope to compete. Technology is advancing so much that we need many educated young people. The middle-aged and the elderly realise what it means to be young and to be out of work, to be underpaid and to have no future. The sooner this Government get out and let in a Labour Government who have the foresight that the Conservatives have not yet achieved, the better. 

We must bring society to the realisation that we must care for our young people and make sure that they are so well trained that they can compete for the jobs and produce the wealth that this nation requires.

Mr. John Lee: I welcome the opportunity of saying a few words. I am sorry that I have not been in the Chamber for all the debate. I was preparing a speech for the annual general meeting tomorrow of the National Youth Bureau of which I am chairman. The question of youth unemployment and the problems of YOP will dominate our session tomorrow.
I wish to make one or two national points and then some local points. The Government should be given credit for the money that they have made available to YOP. We should like much more to be made available, but significant funds have been made available. There are growing pains in the YOP schemes and people abuse them. There is no argument about that, but anything that has grown on such a scale and is now the size of YOP is bound to have anomalies.
The biggest worry of all is the number of young people who, when they come out of YOP schemes, do not go into permanent employment. In my area of north-east Lancashire the percentage of young people going into permanent employment is down to about 20 per cent., which is enormously depressing.
The Government should be given credit in one or two areas. There is a need for new technologies and for our young people to be trained for more modern skills. The Government are setting up about 20 new information technology centers specifically designed for young people throughout the country. They are sited particularly in our urban areas.
I have some interesting statistics about apprenticeships in Germany as compared with this country. At present about 70,000 or 80,000 people are going into apprenticeships in this country compared with about 600,000 in Germany. That problem is compounded. Whereas in this country those apprentices are going into only about 50 different training sectors, in Germany there is a range of about 450 to 500 different training sectors of opportunity and choice for young people, with an emphasis on the service sector and clerical jobs. That is not something that we have developed here to any extent.
Each Member of Parliament, irrespective of party, should do what he can in his own constituency. In my constituency, about six months ago, I formed a youth employment steering group. I brought together the representatives of the local careers office, the MSC, the local authority, Rotary, local industry, the minority communities, and so on, to see how we could tackle the problem at local level.

Mr. Walter Harrison: How many jobs?

Mr. Lee: There is no doubt that we have succeeded in awakening the consciousness of employers. I also pay tribute to the efforts of our mayor. Perhaps other local authorities can take heart from this. Our mayor is not of my political persuasion. He called together in the town hall representatives of firms and industries in the constituency, and as a result of the meeting many of them came to the local MSC office with offers of jobs.

Mr. Harrison: How many jobs were created?

Mr. Lee: It is difficult to give a precise number, but in my area the MSC is hopeful of meeting its obligation to provide those who are leaving school this year with a job or with further training by the end of the year.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for initiating the debate. I am sorry that I did not hear him. That was because the Scottish Members, in their wisdom, did not take as long as they usually take in the operation of their business. Perhaps for that reason we are now having a rather more useful debate.
We are indeed indebted to my hon. Friend. Those who know him are aware of his special interest in young people and of the work that he does in that connection. The Scottish Select Committee has also been looking at the problem.
I shall not embarrass the Minister by asking him whether he is a wet or a dry, but it is appropriate that, in discussing the youth opportunities programme, we should ask him to use his influence within the Department to ensure that youth problems are given priority over anti-trade union legislation, which would neither solve the economic problems of this country nor help to provide opportunities for youth.
I am not an economist, and I can never understand how, in all the big discussions about public expenditure, we can justify increased public expenditure to enable young people to do jobs that should be done by people who are properly employed by local government. That criticism applies also to my own party when in office.
I hope that the Minister will accept that many of us are genuinely worried about the operation and administration of the youth opportunities programme. In particular, when is the announcement likely to be made about the increase in the allowance? Is there likely to be any change in the arrangements for the travelling allowance? The inadequacy of the allowance adversely affects many youngsters who have to travel some distance in order to take advantage of the current youth opportunities programme.
I do not want to damn the Minister, who will have our good wishes if he can exercise a spirit of moderation within his Department and at the same time improve the opportunities that are available under the programme.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Morrison): I, too, am most grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising this very important subject. I am also pleased that, unlike most Adjournment debates, we have been able to have about two hours' discussion.
I should make it clear at the outset that I am more than aware of the anxiety expressed by all Opposition Members. I hope that they will give me, as a Minister at the Department of Employment, a little credit for the fact that I might be just as interested as they are.
The youth opportunities programme is an important aspect of Government policy, not least because, for the school leavers concerned, it is their first experience of work and their reactions to it can and do colour their attitude to work for the rest of their lives.
The hon. Member for Maryhill said that the young people participating in the scheme were getting—I believe

these were his words—a raw deal. He went on to cite the number of places, which was being substantially increased and, to give him his due, he gave the Government, the MSC and my Department credit for that. There seems to be a contradiction in terms, however, if he says in one breath that it is a raw deal and in the next that the number of places is being increased substantially, which I imagine that he, unlike one or two of his hon. Friends, welcomes.
I shall not, in the time left to me, go into the political points made by the hon. Gentleman about the economic situation, except to say this. The hon. Gentleman referred to the number of unfilled vacancies in Glasgow. I believe that he said that in the job centers there were 2,171 and in the careers offices 14. I do not have the specific figures for Glasgow —

Mr. Craigen: Mr. Craigen: I have.

Mr. Morrison: Of course, I understand that. I am not contesting the hon. Gentleman's figures. I do not have the specific figures for Glasgow, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the country as a whole at least 400,000 people per month actually find jobs. To take the number of jobs available on a day, therefore, is not an entirely correct analysis.
The hon. Gentleman asked how many 16 to 17-yearolds have never held down a permanent job. I do not know the answer to that, but I shall write to him as soon as I can with the reply.
The important subject of the allowance was raised by almost every Opposition hon. Member. All forcefully made the point that they believed that £23.50 was not enough. I believe that the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) thought that even the £28 that the MSC was seeking was too little. Another hon. Member thought that £30 might be appropriate, as that is what the figure would have been if inflation had been taken into account. I have to have regard, as does the MSC, to the resources available. If the allowance were increased enormously, the number of places available would inevitably be that much less. Moreover, if £23.50 were really so mean, do Opposition Members believe that school leavers would be applying to join the programme in the numbers that they are?

Mr. Harold Walker: They have no alternative.

Mr. Morrison: What is more, a recent survey shows that 75 per cent. of them regard their stay on the programme as having been either fairly helpful or very helpful indeed.
Therefore, when we come to make the decision about the £23.50—

Mr. Walker: Mr. Walker: When?

Mr. Morrison: In all honesty, I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when, because I do not know. When we take the decision, we shall of course bear in mind what hon. Members have said, but we shall also bear in mind that the number of applications is substantial even at the level of £23.50, that the resources available are finite, and that we wish to give the opportunity to join the scheme to as many youngsters as possible.
The question of substitution was the second point of substance made by Labour Members, and I would be blind if I did not recognise that it represents a potential problem. I know of, and understand, the anxiety of the trade unions about it. I cannot estimate the level of substitution, but any


substitution at all is of concern to me and the MSC as well as to the trade unions. The MSC has instituted stringent procedures to check schemes before approval. That is the best way to beat substitution—in other words, not to let it happen.
However, once a scheme has been approved, if there is a complaint of abuse, the MSC immediately investigates. Where the allegation is proved to be correct, the scheme is immediately closed down and the trainees on that scheme are moved to other schemes. In any case, I believe that as we improve the quality of the programme, the likelihood of substitution will become that much less.

Mr. Craigen: I am sure the Minister is aware that the MSC special programmes division submitted a paper to the Select Committee on Employment. It did calculations on job substitution, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has read that paper.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman flatters me. I try to read everything that I possibly can, and I was aware that that paper had been submitted.
I turn to improvements in the quality of the YOP. Many complaints have been made, although not in this debate, that not enough is being done to train young people within the programme. The hon. Member for Maryhill laid great emphasis on that, although some of his hon. Friends did not. We hope to improve the quality of the YOP schemes, and that will take different forms. First, we want to increase the number of trainees who receive off-the-job training. Secondly, we want to lengthen the period of time spent on the programme as a whole to provide a greater variety of work experience.
How fast can that be done? Unfortunately, it looks as if it will not be as fast as we would like because the scale of the programme is immense and change takes a substantial time. The MSC is preparing proposals, and if necessary we are prepared to look at how the YOP can be developed into some sort of training programme.
The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), in an extraordinary speech, maintained that the recession was deliberately planned before the general election. The hon. Gentleman is a highly astute politician. He is a senior member of his own party on the National Executive Committee. I would have thought that he would understand perfectly well that no Government plans a recession, because, for good reasons, all Governments wish to be returned to power. There was no planning of a recession. It has come about for a multitude of different reasons. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should spend our way out of it, but in my view the recession would be worse if there were a Socialist Government.
The hon. Member also referred to early retirement and argued that there should be early retirement on a greater scale. The hon. Member for Keighley referred to the job release scheme in respect of which we have just reduced the age limit. That is a form of early retirement that provides jobs as a result.

Mr. Skinner: I need to correct the Minister. He probably did not hear me correctly. I said that if it seems sensible to the Government to give £23.50 to these youngsters to be exploited, and in some circumstances to be doing work that is worthless—I am not saying that that is so in all cases—it would be more sensible for people who retire voluntarily to be given that £23.50 plus their old

age pension. That would give people an incentive to retire early, like the miners. Miners do not retire early on the basis simply of receiving their old age pension, but on the basis of receiving the old age pension plus an incentive of an additional sum, which is equivalent to redundancy pay. If the Government gave people the £23.50 plus the old age pension it is likely that more people would retire early because they would have an incentive, and more young people would get jobs as a result.

Mr. Morrison: The fact is that the hon. Gentleman is again asking for a large increase in the amount of money to be spent—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and he has not fitted his remarks into the criteria of the job release scheme, which ensure that when a person retires early he is replaced by a person who is, by definition, younger than himself.

Mr. Cryer: This is supplementary.

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that the earlier remarks of the hon. Member for Keighley about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment are worthy of him or the House. They are not true and he knows it. He knows perfectly well that my right hon. Friend has made good from very humble beginnings. The tone of his remarks was not worthy of him or the House.
The hon. Gentleman talked about import controls and about cutting defence. Has he really worked out whether, if we went down that route, the net result would be a substantial loss of jobs? I can assure him that that would be the result.
The hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) slated Marks and Spencer as a sponsor of the youth opportunities programme. I hope that on consideration he will withdraw the personal remarks that he made.

Mr. Haynes: I shall not withdraw. It is true. It is a racket.

Mr. Morrison: Marks and Spencer is an exceptionally good sponsor of the scheme. It provides many opportunities for young people—probably in the hon. Gentleman's constituency too—who would not otherwise have that opportunity.

Mr. Haynes: That firm contributes to the hon. Gentleman's party. It is a racket.

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Gentleman is doing no service at all, either to the youth opportunities programme or to school leavers who benefit from it, by making those sorts of remarks about Marks and Spencer.

Mr. Haynes: It is true and I shall keep repeating it.

Mr. Morrison: I listened closely to the two points made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). He spoke about local authorities. I welcome anyone who wants to participate in the scheme. I shall speak to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who


is responsible for the youth opportunities programme, and see whether there is some way in which we can make further improvements.

Mr. Craigen: I should like something positive to come out of this debate. When may we expect an announcement about an uprating in the present training allowance?

Mr. Morrison: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer, not least because I do not know exactly when. I should imagine that it would be in the not too distant future, but I do not know when. It is a matter that we review on an annual basis, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walker), when he was

Minister of State. I should not like to mislead the House by giving a date when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is impossible to give dates.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the materials allowance. There is annual review and I shall make sure that his point is taken carefully into account by the Manpower Services Commission.
I could not agree more with the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) when he says that we must face up to technology and be competitive. With remarks such as that, he could easily join our Benches. I thought that that was a matter that his right hon. and hon. Friends—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o' clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.